From: Takaaki T. <tt...@ja...> - 2001-08-19 17:31:23
|
At Sun, 19 Aug 2001 09:38:42 -0700, Kevin Smith <kev...@ho...> wrote: > It seems quite complex to me, and I like simple things. If there is a > compelling reason to have the parallel inheritance, then this seems like it > might be a good way to do it. But I haven't found any features yet that > require it. Maybe I misunderstood `parallel inheritance'. Xxxx ---> SubXxxx | V Yyyy ---> SubYyyy Is the above a parallel inheritance? It is not `multiple inheritance'. Is it right? I show you the reason later, since it's kinda difficult for me to explain it in english. > The only feature missing from this design seems to be the ability for a > client to override draw( ) and invoke the original version. I haven't > thought about it, but I assume this would be possible to add. Yes, I forgot to implement the method invoking the draw() of the super class. I found this problem a few hour ago. now I'm sure it is possible. -- Takaaki Tateishi <tt...@ja...> |