From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2000-07-13T13:50:04+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:03960] Re: Multiple single inheritance?

Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:03950] Multiple single inheritance?"
    on 00/07/12, Aleksi Niemel� <aleksi.niemela@cinnober.com> writes:

|When I was wrestling with module definitions and 'inclusions' I couldn't
|come up with a reason why we don't have multiple single inheritance (and
|thus quite close to problem free (?) multiple inheritance).

I think the words `multiple single inheritance' itself a
contradiction.  Anyway, for the reason why I choose Mix-in over
Multiple inheritance, see [ruby-talk:3642].

In [ruby-talk:03642] I wrote:
>Well, if you like, you can say that Ruby has restricted MI.  But I'd
>call it `SI with implementation sharing'.  That's a matter of point of
>view.
>
>The reason of this restriction is my belief that MI is too complicated
>of human mind, well, at least for MY mind.  And educational reason
>too.  I wanted to proselyte the principle of Mix-in, which is
>applicable to any MI language.  Ruby certainly is a pragmatic
>language, not an educational language in general, except this point.

							matz.