MUD-Dev
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
[MUD-Dev] Re: DBMS in MU*'s
(this is a reply to an old post)
J C Lawrence wrote:
[...]
> I like multiple inheritance, but will freely admit that it makes
> gawd-awful nightmares easily accomplishable. Others champion single
> inheritance, stating quite rightly, that there's nothing you can do in
> multiple inheritance that can't be accomplished (with a different
> hierarchy) using single inheritance. It really derives to something
> much like the dreaded GOTO war: Everybody admits that there are no
> cases where there is no alternative to using them, but many argue that
> using them makes some/many cases "simpler".
>
> Then again there is the concept of interfaces (again, cf the current
> C++ Report (sorry about the price)) which adds a whole new twist to
> the puzzle outside of the inheritance arena without really replacing
> the concepts of inheritance at all. They've all got their uses,
> proponents, enemies, and champions, and can all do the job at hand if
> you put your mind to it.
I haven't been able to get hold of C++ report. Maybe you could sketch the
implementation? Is the interface implemented using virtual functions, one
reference and an abstract base class?
--
Ola
- Thread context:
- [MUD-Dev] Re: DBMS in MU*'s, (continued)
- [MUD-Dev] Re: DBMS in MU*'s,
The Arrow arrow#trelleborg,mail.telia.com, Mon 20 Jul 1998, 03:52 GMT
- [MUD-Dev] Re: DBMS in MU*'s,
J C Lawrence claw#under,engr.sgi.com, Tue 11 Aug 1998, 23:22 GMT
- [MUD-Dev] Re: DBMS in MU*'s,
quzah quzah#geocities,com, Sun 19 Jul 1998, 20:56 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]