From: MenTaLguY <mental@...>
Date: 2007-10-07T08:38:34+09:00
Subject: Re: The Case for Multiple-Inheritance

--=-VKs9TzM47RkJXhINeGV5
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, 2007-10-07 at 07:18 +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> What Mentalguy's suggesting is that the relationships may not be best
> modeled as an is-a relationship, as I suggested to Trans early on in
> the discussion. Is-a relationships are very tightly coupled and should
> only be used where such a tight relationship is warranted.

Also, even when you have a true "is-a" relationship, "is-a" in the class
domain doesn't always correspond to "is-a" in the domain being modeled.=20

This is because the requirements of dynamic method dispatch introduce
additional constraints on subclassing which violate some of the laws a
simple transitive relationship like "is-a" might reasonably be expected
to obey.

Single-inheritance is an obvious example of one such constraint, but
allowing multiple inheritance simply means replacing that constraint
with others.

-mental

--=-VKs9TzM47RkJXhINeGV5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBHCBx4SuZBmZzm14ERAoNSAKDeCpdoY6mHgKn0EUvwCTovjkYO3QCgrD/h
ISeBBIzQ0v4tTSsRaJDoLr4=
=4sAe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-VKs9TzM47RkJXhINeGV5--