On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 12:47:41PM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
>> What's wrong with multiple inheritance?
> You have to create a whole load of extra classes whose only
> purpose is to define a list of superclasses. Compare:
This sounds a lot like the case I had with a
content-syndication system I'm
When you blass an object in Perl, you give it exactly
one type. The @ISA variable allows that type to refer
to many other classes as the inheritance tree. @ISA
is a list, but ref($obj) isn't. This means that you
sometimes have to create a lot of useless classes to
work around this limitation.
A s
At 11:44 AM 6/25/01 -0700, David Whipp wrote:
>When you blass an object in Perl, you give it exactly
>one type. The @ISA variable allows that type to refer
>to many other classes as the inheritance tree. @ISA
>is a list, but ref($obj) isn't. This means that you
>sometimes have to create a lot of u
Peter Scott wrote:
> What's wrong with multiple inheritance?
You have to create a whole load of extra classes whose only
purpose is to define a list of superclasses. Compare:
bless $self, qw(Employed Male);
with
package Employed_Male;
@ISA=qw(Employed Male); # multiple inheritance
...
At 12:05 PM 6/25/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>At 11:44 AM 6/25/01 -0700, David Whipp wrote:
>>Can anyone see any problems with making C and
>>C work with lists? C is not effected. We
>>might want some magic to ensure 'ref($foo) eq "bar"'
>>still works as expected.
>
>What's wrong with multiple
> >What's wrong with multiple inheritance?
>
> Nothing, but he wants MI on a per-object basis, rather than a per-class
> basis, presumably to avoid having to create a zillion classes who's sole
> purpose in life is to have an @ISA array.
>
> Sounds sensible, and worth send
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 11:44:06AM -0700, David Whipp quoth:
> We might want some magic to ensure 'ref($foo) eq "bar"'
> still works as expected.
ref($foo) could be any(@ISA)
.g
--
Writing code on one line is like playing the trumpet without breathing!
-Adam Pisoni
