NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/lang/cplus/19700

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 1.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!gossip.pyramid.com!pyramid!infmx!cshaver
From: [e-mail] (Craig Shaver)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: MI vs. SI
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:51:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News)
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Lines: 42

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Pete Becker) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> writes:
...
>> >through the use of multiple inheritance.
>>
...
>> But that sort of problem isn't limited to multiple inheritance...
>>     -- Pete
>>
>Totally agree. Why oh why oh why (:-)) do folks have such a downer on MI? YES, I
>suppose you can do the same stuff with SI, but thats like saying "I can get from
>A to B by walking, why drive?" (well kind of). The point is MI is USEFUL. As people
>have said before: "Use it for Mixins". There is too much design of classes that
>can't be re-used for various reasons (private not protected members, standard not
>virtual functions (esp. destructors), monolithic SI class libraries).
>
>If you want to see the best argument yet for MI, take a look at NIH (it uses SI). The
>library would have been much more useful written as a set of Mixins. Programmers could
>then decide for themselves which parts of the Object class they wanted in their
>programs. (P.S. NIH was first written prior to MI).
>
>Anyway, enough ranting for now.
>
>(Needless to say, my opinions are my own)
>
>- Paul
>
>
>---
>---
>Paul Andrews
>
>EMail                Telephone
>[e-mail]    [phone]

What about using delegation through class members?


--
Craig Shaver  ([e-mail] for now) [phone] [phone]
Productivity Group POB 60458 Sunnyvale, CA  94088