|
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? Andre van Tonder 20 Sep 2005 16:24 UTC
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Michael Sperber wrote: > Richard Kelsey <xxxxxx@s48.org> writes: >> Actually, it does give an order. "Parent init expressions, if any, >> are evaluated before child init expressions." Actually, the draft says this in the section on INIT! (with the bang), where it seems fine. It is quiet on the field initializations. For the latter, if the current draft were to stand, I would prefer that it remain unspecified. In the most obvious functional approach, the child fields are more naturally evaluated first. Cheers Andre