From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: ell@access4.digex.net (Ell) Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract) Date: 1997/09/06 Message-ID: <5uq95j$hgg$2@news2.digex.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 270105215 Followup-To: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Organization: The Universe Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: W. Wesley Groleau x4923 (wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com) wrote: : : ... I was responding : to those who want to deny that a good feature language X is not : an advantage because language Y can accomplish the same thing by : an unintended use of features it DOES have. Those are the folks : that first brought up the idea. : : It happens on the Ada side, too. "Multiple inheritance is not : important because we can simulate it this way." What the Ada advocate : should say is one of (1) "We think MI is bad because" OR (2) "We : looked at the _goal_ of multiple inheritance and decided that _goal_ : could be better acheived by..." OR (3) "OK, we'll let you have that : as an advantage of your language." What's invalid about saying not saying (1), (2), or (3) and leaving things "equal". Certainly that situation _does_ exist. Elliott -- "The domain object model is the foundation of OOD." "We should seek out proven optimal practices and use them." See SW Modeller vs SW Pragmatist Central: http://www.access.digex.net/~ell