Re: (Off topic - a bit) This is not an apology!
Re: (Off topic - a bit) This is not an apology!
- Subject: Re: (Off topic - a bit) This is not an apology!
- From: Ondra Cada <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 01:28:08 +0100
Bradley,
>
>>>>> Smith, Bradley (SB) wrote at Tue, 11 Dec 2001 14:59:36 -0000:
SB> Given that We're (mostly) Obj-C programmers here and don't have multiple
SB> inheritance at our disposal, how (given that in design terms multiple
SB> inheritance is valid) do you work around a language's lack of support for
SB> it? Do you redesign to eliminate teh MI? If so, how? Or, do you accept
SB> that the design is valid and just implement it differently? Ondra, feel
SB> free to comment - I promise not to attack (unless severely provoked) ;-)
You can model MI directly using object embedding and message forwarding.
ALthough it brings _some_ lost of efficiency, in a vast majority of
applications it should be all right. Are there any reasons why you
can't/won't go that way?
SB> P.S. Remember, I have to use C++. Obj-C isn't an option and I guess
SB> off-list replies might be in order.
Ahh! Sorry (well, I won't delete the previous paragraph ;)))
Then you just have a bunch of C++ code and want just to get rid of the MI
thing, right?
Alas I don't have an advice then (even my own C++ toolkit uses MI in a very
controlled way to mimic protocols, since there is -- so far as I know -- no
other way to do that in the thing). Can't you go GNU ObjC? It's *MUCH* more
portable than C++, actually!
---
Ondra Cada
OCSoftware: email@hidden
http://www.ocs.cz
2K Development: email@hidden
http://www.2kdevelopment.cz
private email@hidden
http://www.ocs.cz/oc