|
Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
Ken Dickey
(13 Sep 2005 20:27 UTC)
|
|
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
Richard Kelsey
(18 Sep 2005 14:08 UTC)
|
|
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
Michael Sperber
(20 Sep 2005 10:21 UTC)
|
|
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
Richard Kelsey
(20 Sep 2005 14:29 UTC)
|
|
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction? Michael Sperber (20 Sep 2005 15:15 UTC)
|
|
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
Richard Kelsey
(20 Sep 2005 15:27 UTC)
|
|
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
Michael Sperber
(20 Sep 2005 15:53 UTC)
|
|
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
Andre van Tonder
(20 Sep 2005 16:24 UTC)
|
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction? Michael Sperber 20 Sep 2005 15:15 UTC
Richard Kelsey <xxxxxx@s48.org> writes: > It's clear how multiple inheritance works with the predicates. > How it works with the initializers isn't so obvious. For that > matter, I am not sure how the initializers work for single > inheritance. Are the supertype initializers called? Yes. The PARENT clause provides arguments for the supertype construction procedure's parameters. (Re-reading the spec, the difference between "constructor" and "construction procedure" could probably be made clearer.) > In some particular order? No---at least the current draft doesn't specify one, keeping with Scheme's tradition here. > What are the semantics of a partially initialized record? I don't think there's a way to get one. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla