Re^2: a question on namespaces and inheritance

mixing procedural and OO calling conventions will cause you grief

Maybe in general, but in this specific case it's entirely appropriate.

Comment on Re^2: a question on namespaces and inheritance

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: a question on namespaces and inheritance by tlm (Prior) on Jun 03, 2005 at 20:02 UTC
I have to disagree. For one thing, it is hard to base an exception on the particulars of such a generic case as the one the OP presented, but more importantly, in the context of a question on inheritance, it makes no sense to me to switch over to procedural calling, which disables inheritance. If at some point someone decides to get rid of `M::C1::object_method`, thereby letting instances of `M::C1` use `M::object_method` instead, then this will break `M::C2::object_method` as defined by the OP. the lowliest monk	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: a question on namespaces and inheritance
by tlm (Prior) on Jun 03, 2005 at 20:02 UTC

I have to disagree. For one thing, it is hard to base an exception on the particulars of such a generic case as the one the OP presented, but more importantly, in the context of a question on inheritance, it makes no sense to me to switch over to procedural calling, which disables inheritance. If at some point someone decides to get rid of M::C1::object_method, thereby letting instances of M::C1 use M::object_method instead, then this will break M::C2::object_method as defined by the OP.

the lowliest monk

[reply]