Dom Lachowicz wrote:
> Quoting F J Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>>>I'm wondering what you're trying to do that might require multiple
>>>inheritance.
>>>
>>I've been thinking for a few weeks about importers, particularly w.r.t.
>>XML, e.g.:
>>
>>class ABI_EXPORT IE_Imp
>>class ABI_EXPORT IE_Imp_XML : public IE_Imp
>>class ABI_EXPORT IE_Imp_XHTML : public IE_Imp_XML
>>
>>thinking that XML import really ought to be more fundamental, so that
>>
>>class ABI_EXPORT IE_Imp_XML : public IE_Imp, UT_XML
>>
>>if that's the correct syntax.
>>
>
> This is sweet, esp. since I was talking about my doing this yesterday on IRC.
> Please feel free to do this. The SVG and XAP_Prefs stuff will greatly benefit
> from this.
I come here a bit late, and I don't fully know all the technical details
(so you should be doubly surprised if I'm right :)
As I see it, IE_Imp_XML is a IE_Imp and uses a UT_XML (I'm guessing that
UT_XML is some kind of xml reader with bells & whistles for help in the
import task).
So to me the right way to modelize that is:
class IE_Imp_XML : public IE_Imp
{
private:
UT_XML xmlParser;
...
};
btw, I though that we were not using MI not for lack of support in our
compilers, but because it's hard to use right (for instance, I think
that here you're showing an example of abuse of MI).
Am I missing something?
Feel free to flame me if I'm wrong :)
Cheers,
--
Joaquin Cuenca Abela
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
