Variable inheritance

[Roman Suzi]

On Tue, 22 May 2001, Courageous wrote:

>
>>That's because there isn't any.  If an object *is* simultaneously two or
>>more types of things (e.g., a table is simultaneously a hard surface AND a
>>piece of furniture, whereas a counter-top is just a hard surface), then it
>>makes sense to be able to express it as such accordingly.
>
>But yet *is a* relationships are an artificially constrained way of thinking
>about MI.

"Goto"s also could be used to form branches and loops, not
only spaghetty code...

MI, is, IMHO, "goto" of OOdesign.
But who says we can't use it? Just don't tell you've done
OOD design right. (BTW, there is no clear expression of
what right OOD is ;-) OOP/D books are full of artificial exampli where
everything is "OK".

*

Python is very flexible and allows everything. I am not happy
I started MI debate here. Not that I feel defeated, but it
shows that there is no common understanding of good OO habits.
OOP remains art. And there is no right thing in an art,
only tastes.

But nonetheless thank you for learning!

>C//

Sincerely yours, Roman Suzi
-- 
_/ Russia _/ Karelia _/ Petrozavodsk _/ rnd at onego.ru _/
_/ Tuesday, May 22, 2001 _/ Powered by Linux RedHat 6.2 _/
_/ "Never trust a computer you can't lift. - Stan Masor" _/