So one could say that the mixins are inserted in to the inheritance
chain. I think I got it now.
> You can't say `super.super`, you can't get around the built-in
> inheritance chain. This is part of the power (and danger) of mixins.
> With a single-inheritance language, it should not be too surprising
or > confusing. It gets more complicated if your language is a
> multiple-inheritance language (more than you probably every want to
> know about the issue here: http://bit.ly/6iixlA).
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately it requires payment however the
abstract has this to say about the dangers of super.super
"Recent work has defined several desirable characteristics for
linearizations, the most important being monotonicity, which prohibits
inherited properties from skipping over direct superclasses"
...
"a monotonic linearization enables some compile-time method selection
that would otherwise be impossible in the absence of a closed-world
assumption"
So if you don't mind I would like to know what would be the danger of
skipping on superclass?
And could the compiler not know exactly the same way which method to
call even if super.super was used? Since it must know the complete
inheritance hierarchy then when encountering super.super it would know
to go 2 levels up instead of just one.
And you can omit all considerations of multiple inheritance since laszlo
(and javascript) do not have it. (As a matter of fact isn't the keyword
super always ambiguous in case of multiple inheritance?)
- rami
