Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> Argh...forget about virtual functions. They are an artifact of C++, 
> which does everything statically by default. I specifically said no 
> static binding. No virtual functions, because everything is dynamically 
> bound.

  What do you mean "no virtual functions"? If every function is dynamically
bound, then *every* member function is virtual.

  At least you should be able to specify a default implementation for
a member function or live it as purely virtual.
  If you leave all the member functions as purely virtual, then what
you have is an interface.

> >   A class is abstract if it has pure virtual functions (that is,
> > the class does not implement the virtual function(s) and thus cannot
> > be instantiated because of this; it can only be used through
> > inheritance so that the derived class implements the virtual
> > function(s) in question).

> Again, I'm talking about single inheritance. Multiple inheritance is not 
> necessary, and is needlessly complex.

  Who is talking about multiple inheritance here? I'm not.

  And multiple inheritance may be complex from the point of view of
the interpreter/compiler, not from the point of view of the user.
Why should that be a limit?

> Abstract classes are not as useful 
> in single inheritance models, interfaces cover their functionality. 

  I don't understand what you are saying.
  Why have *two* types of classes when you can have just one?
And why abstract classes are not useful in single inheritance model?

> Interfaces render multiple inheritance + multiple abstract root classes 
> obsolete, not the other way around.

  Interfaces are a poor way of making multiple inheritance. They have
all the logical problems of multiple inheritance and they force you
to make code repetition.
  I have never understood what's so good about interfaces.

> >   That's right. *You*. But that's ok only for as long as you don't
> > distribute that library of yours containing public member variables...
> > Someone will inevitably use it in the wrong way and his code can then
> > break with an updated version of the library.

> That's their fault

  You can't design libraries with that principle.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message