7 Mar
2013
7 Mar
'13
2:45 p.m.
Hi,
We do not want to use multiple inheritance as a design tool. We should use
Traits instead, as we know it scales better.
Alain Plantec already did a prototype for having Traits in Fame, but it was
not integrated. It would be great if someone would look into this. The only
thing to keep in mind is that we would have to also update the Java version
of Fame.
Cheers,
Doru
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Nicolas Anquetil
<Nicolas.Anquetil(a)inria.fr>wrote;wrote:
I believe I already said here that I don't like very much the "default"
FAMIX metamodel in Moose because it is the union of Smalltalk and Java
specificities.
For 2 languages it works (more or less), but if we want to add C#, C++,
and whatever-else (not talking about non OO languages), it quickly starts
to be a huge mess.
It would be preferable to have a generic metamodel and specific ones for
each languages.
But then, we will run into cases where we want to have some kind of
multiple inheritance.
For example we could want to say that a Java method and a C function are
behaviouralEntities with return type and Java methods and Smalltalk methods
are behavioural entities with a received (when they are called) and Java
method now have two superclasses.
So the question arise why Fame does not have multiple inheritance?
- no specific reason?
- fundamental design decision?
- historical reason?
nicolas
--
Nicolas Anquetil -- RMod research team (Inria)
______________________________**_________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/**mailman/listinfo/moose-dev<https://www.iam.un…
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"