Re: MI: why?

• To: info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
• Subject: Re: MI: why?
• From: bparsia@email.unc.edu (Bijan Parsia)
• Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:15:07 -0500 (EST)
• Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• References: <uaIe4.12653$Ce.289242@monger.newsread.com> <387BC10E.BED9F41F@miqs.com> <20000112004057.18210.qmail@gorn.americom.com> <387C849F.BC993358@dial.pipex.com> <387CD2A9.1D7DF8A@miqs.com>
• User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.4.2
• Xref: traf.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.dylan:11447

Scott Ribe <sribe@miqs.com> wrote:

[snip]
> Multiple inheritance does present some difficult issues, and the C++
> implementation is particularly filled with potential traps. (Thus it
> fits right in with the rest of the language!) It's interesting to note
> that the only OO languages without MI are either older, early generation
> OO (Smalltalk, Objective-C, Object Pascal) or poorly designed kludges
> (Java). 

[snip]

Small point. Smalltalk had multiple inheritence at one point (just see
the Inside Smalltalk books) and it's fairly easy to add it (there's a
file-in floating around).

--
Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.

• A question
• From: "Stephen J. Guthrie" <steve.guthrie@mantissa.com>
• Re: A question
• From: Scott Ribe <sribe@miqs.com>
• Re: A question
• From: rwk@americom.com
• MI: why?
• From: jt <gkt37@dial.pipex.com>
• Re: MI: why?
• From: Scott Ribe <sribe@miqs.com>

• Prev: Re: A question
• Next: Re: MI: why?
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread