Re: Inherited Methods and such

[Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>]

On 28 Wrz, 02:44, "Randy Brukardt" <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote:

> > 1. I don't have to redispatch from Initialize, I can do this from
> > subprogram S1, which was called from S2, which was called from ... SN,
> > which was called from Initialize.
>
> Of course, that's why it can't be banned. But it is still wrong. I would go
> so far as to suggest that *calling out* from Initialize with an object of
> the type (or an ancestor) is wrong (with the single exception of calling a
> parent's Initialize routine). But that might be going too far.

It might be good as a coding convention, though.

> (Still, that
> is a rule that could be implemented by a style checker

Yes.


> > > (I suspect the same is true while it is being
> > > finalized
>
> > Yes. The tag should progressively "degrade" during subsequent stages
> > of finalization.
>
> No reason for messing with the tag or doing it "progressively". If
> dispatching is wrong on Initialize, it is wrong in all of them, so it would
> be banned until construction is finished, and similarly during destruction.

Just have said yourself that it cannot be banned.
What about aliasing the object? I don't have to dispatch from
Initialize directly - I can leak the reference to some global access
variable and some other part of the code can pick it from there. A
mess? Sure, but we are talking about completeness.

BTW - your argument about covering this issue with education is
dangerous - someone might use it against you the next time anybody
criticizes "other" languages for being error prone... ;-)

--
Maciej Sobczak
http://www.msobczak.com/