Multiple Inheritance of Classes

[BCS]

Reply to superdan,

> BCS Wrote:
> 
>>> appeal to ridicule. appeal to the majority.
>>> 
>> Both reasonable if enough people are doing the ridicule (95%
>> majority?), again with the disclaimer for the occasional
>> expert/academic that most of us (walter excluded) don't have anywhere
>> near the time to become.
>> 
> i don't find either particularly reasonable.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
> 

OK I got that backwards: appeal to ridicule != lots of people ridicule it

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum. if you don't have
> the time to become an expert just let walter or some expert answer.
> that post reveals zero knowledge on the subject. merely a perpetuation
> of the "it's evil" heard from someone else and ingested noncritically.
> after "don't do it!!! it's evil!!!" all i can expect next is "keep the
> faith!!!" fuck man.
> 

I'm not saying either is a good proof or even a strong argument, but if you 
don't have time to form your own opinion (and like it or not most of the 
time you don't) both work reasonably well untill you do have time. 

And in this cases I think it is more of an opinion summery that a proof or 
argument.

>>> the man has kindly asked a sensible question. he deserves a good
>>> answer. if u can't give one just don't reply. this is just
>>> ignorance.
>>> 
>> I think that was a good answer to the question "Why doesn't D have
>> MI?"
>> 
> "it's evil" is a good answer? cut the shit man. why is it evil again?
> your critical reasoning filter ever questioned that assertion?
> 
>>> below's an attempt at an answer.
>>> 
>> The below is a reasonable answer to "Justify D's lack of MI." or
>> "What is the rational for D's not having MI?" Those are different
>> questions that what Lars was going for.
>> 
> pardon me if i'm dense but i have a hard time distinguishing between
> the two. and pardon me if i continue to think "it's evil" is mere
> oxshit.
> 

the one answer is like saying "don't drive over 35 MPH on that street because 
it's illegal" the other answer is like saying "it is illegal to drive over 
35 MPH because there are small children playing there"

Another way of looking at it would be that the first is like saying "I did 
B after reading the paper 'A is a bad Idea' " and the second is the paper 
it's self. 

>>> first i repeat what is already known. d does do multiple inheritance
>>> thru interfaces.
>>> 
>> Is interfaces MI? That is debatable because, as you point out, there
>> is a huge difference between it and MI->data & MI->implementation.
>> 
> it's not debatable. interfaces are inheritance. they satisfy the
> definition. (substitution principle.) if you implement multiple
> interfaces you do mi. case closed. to summarize: d does mi of
> interface but not mi of data and not mi of implementation. they are
> different flavors of shit but that does not make interfaces mi
> debatable.
> 

OK fine, pick a word (I'll use ___) that applyes to the stuff D dosn't do 
and not to the stuff it does. The OP wants to talk about why D dosn't have 
___. Talking about if ___ is MI is realy boring so lets not.

>> Yeah, I've wanted that, OTOH it might get tricky to implement because
>> of the mechanics of interfaces.
>> 
[...]
>> 
> nothing that walt can't do.
>

I'll have to go with "He has better thigns to do" on that one.