Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!.POSTED.c-24-60-169-94.hsd1.ma.comcast.net!not-for-mail
From: Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: multiple inheritance in Java
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 08:13:06 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <kqufqd$52m$1@dont-email.me>
References: <multiple-inheritance-20130702021857@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <kqtbe7$mth$1@dont-email.me> <multiple-inheritence-20130702041514@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <kqtjfn$uf0$1@dont-email.me> <multiple-inheritance-20130702120045@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 12:07:42 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c-24-60-169-94.hsd1.ma.comcast.net:24.60.169.94"; logging-data="5206"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="esosman"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
In-Reply-To: <multiple-inheritance-20130702120045@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:24577

On 7/2/2013 6:02 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> writes:
>>      Still, I don't see the relevance of multiple inheritance to
>> your question, which seems to boil down to: "What are the trade-offs
>> in exposing fields vs. using accessors?"  I think we can debate (have
>> debated) that matter at length without involving M.I. -- so it seems
>> I'm still missing your intent.
>
>    When an object O exposes two public fields of two classes P and Q,
>    this has some of the benefits that mutiple inheritance from both
>    P and Q would have, while one does not tediously has to code
>    a lot of delegating methods in this object O.
>
>    (When I really implement this, P and Q actually are interfaces,
>    but the during the creation of O an implementation of those
>    interfaces is assigned to their corresponding fields in O.)

     I still don't see the relevance of M.I. to the question.
Thought experiment: How would anything change if you were to
remove Q from the scenario altogether?

>    This might also be called »poor man's multiple inheritance«.

     I'm not sure why anyone would use that term for "making a
field public."

-- 
Eric Sosman
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid