Re: Multiple Inheritance in Ada 9X

[icd.ab.com!iccgcc.decnet.ab.com!klimas@uunet.uu.net]

In article <1991Dec23.182008.3383@linus.mitre.org>, gary@maestro.mitre.org (Gar
y Bisaga) writes:
> In article <1991Dec20.094627.6517@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, klimas@iccgcc.decnet
.ab.com writes:
> |> 	If you're going to implement MI, please study what has been done alread
y
> |> 	very closely because there seems to be a uniform story comming back
> |> 	from different sources and technologies that the current
> |> 	implementations of MI create more troubles than benefits. 
> Besides this paper (reference deleted in article citation), what other
> study results have you seen to support this conclusion?  I am honestly
> interested in such results, as I have used MI to (I think anyway) good
> effect.
	There have been a number of OOPSLA workshops where these issues
	have been discussed.  One more recent paper on the subject with
	a number of other references in it that comes to mind is 
	"The Point of View notion for Multiple Inheritance" by Carre and
	Geib in the OOPSLA/ECOOP 90 proceedings.

	The OOPSLA 91 experience reports had several presnters also discussing
	issues with MI.

	Lipmann's excellent C++ book also has some very good guidelines and
	caveats about MI.

	To reitterate my original statement, MI can lead to very elegant
	solutions for many simple problems, but when extended to more complex
	situations the current scheme's appear to run into problems.
	My point is not to dispute the utility of MI, just to alert the
	original poster that there is not a clear agreement in the OOP
	community that the current MI schemes are good ideas.