Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| From: | Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Sun, 15 Apr 2018 00:12:57 +0200 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | <49854345-f940-e82a-5c35-35078c4189d5@gkc.org.uk> 18-03-103 18-03-042 18-03-047 18-03-075 18-03-079 18-03-101 18-04-002 18-04-003 18-04-004 18-04-024 18-04-034 18-04-041 18-04-051 18-04-057 18-04-066 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="65114"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | OOP, history |
| Posted-Date: | 14 Apr 2018 21:02:14 EDT |
Am 14.04.2018 um 19:40 schrieb George Neuner:
> The problem is in unrelated classes that need to implement the entire
> interface. Consider, e.g., serializable, or displayable - in many
> languages you would end up reimplementing the entire interface in
> every branch of your heirarchy, with overrides in virtually every
> subclass.
Please give an example where inheritance from a "serializable" base
class can do something meaningful, without explicitly coded integration
into the derived class.
> The "implements" mechanism saves work in SI languages, but it is less
> useful in an MI language where any class can simply inherit whatever
> functionality it needs.
See above. Fully unrelated functionality does not even deserve a
relationship between both classes, no inheritance at all. Any
dependencies require explicit code, even in MI.
DoDi
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.