On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> I posted awhile ago about how I needed an XP AP app class to save 800k of
> memory out of the 1500k it uses on my system at startup. I haven't heard
> back, so I'm going to implement a solution and commit it unless I hear
> some feedback :). The code guidelines state that I should "avoid multiple
> inheritance", but multiple inheritance seems like the way to go here. If
> people voulenteer ideas on how to avoid multiple inheritance, I'm willing
> to consider them. Otherwise, I'm ready to defend multiple inheritance to
> the entire developer base and attempt to convince everyone that this
> exception must be made if people want a good, sanely-implemented application.
>
> For the original mail message:
> http://www.abisource.com/mailinglists/abiword-dev/00/July/0011.html
It sounds to me like what this needs is to go into XAP_App. If we ever
implemet other applications to take advantage of the app framework, at
least some of them will need spell checking, and it would be a wast to
have to implement it all again.
OTOH, our hierarchy really does look like a candiate for multiple
inheritance. (note: I am *not* proposing adding this now). It could look
like this:
XAP_App-----------
/ \ \
/ \ \
XAP_UnixApp AP_App (in wp) \- AP_App (in other apps)
\ /
\ /
Ap_UnixApp
>
>
> Sorry to be the one that always proposes radical solutions (scheme, etc).
> Somebody has to do it, just like someone has to keep complaining about the
> windows build :). It's how stuff gets done.
Sometimes radical solutions are neccessary. But I don't think that this
particular case is an example of one of those times.
sam th
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.abisource.com/~sam
