GrandFather:
The bottom line is that the derived class has to disambiguate access to base class members as required.
----
*Ding*....that's not the answer I wanted to hear! :-)

Not sure how it would be "implemented" internally, but my "SuperDeluxe" preference would be to explain to perl that "$s" (handle to left parent) should be used for left-parent accesses, and "$w" (handle to right parent) should be used for right-parent accesses.

Something on the order of:

@ISA=qw(Sclass, Wclass);
....
new(){
my $s=Sclass->new();
TELL_ISA_LOOKUP_USING(Sclass, 'self') #(self=this class's handle)
# and use the "wclass_handle_field as handle for Wclass:
TELL_ISA_LOOKUP_USING(Wclass, 'self'->{'wclass_handle_field'})
....
}
[download]

"Seems" like any class other than the 1st parent is a bit like a "second class citizen": can't specify in "use base(...)", and inheritance is only handled automatically for the left-most ISA member. Any other use of multiple inheritance, and it seems like it's mostly "do it yourself". Can't even have "structs" that are nested because of a disallowing of any "inherited" structs (as in "use struct...") -- was going to use that module (actually was using), until I got to next 'struct' further up....then I realized what I wanted to do wasn't supported...*sigh*.

Thanks much -- I was just hoping I didn't understand something, since it seems like manual disambiguation and making sure correct handles are used with correct ancestor really is _not_ "multiple inheritance" -- since how can "MI" ever work "automatically", if non-primary base classes are always passed the handle to the primary base class? :-(