Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!att!poseidon!ech
From: ech@poseidon.ATT.COM (Edward C Horvath)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: object oriented design decision
Message-ID: <578@poseidon.ATT.COM>
Date: 15 Nov 88 15:19:28 GMT
References: <11256@cup.portal.com>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Lincroft, NJ
Lines: 15

From article <11256@cup.portal.com>, by dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins):
> Thanks for all the email responses to my query.  To summarize:

> Multiple inheritance is an indication that something is wrong with the class
> hierarchy.  Restructure that and single inheritance should do fine...

I used to think so, too.  Then I read Meyer's book: multiple inheritance
is a concept with immense power, not a "hack."

I am less convinced of the need for REPEATED inheritance, i.e.  inheriting
from two or more classes with a common ancestor.  Even here, however,
notions like nodes which are simultaneously on two types of linked
lists are well-served by repeated-inheritance-with-renaming.

=Ned Horvath=