Koray Atalag wrote: > > In my former message, with the question of writing down B and A for > spelicalization section of C, I was proposing to write down the names of all > archetypes till the top level in specialization archetype- like an absolute > specialization path. This I think is not true multiple-inheritance as in any > instance of this specialized archetype, it will conform to only one parent > and not inherit non-conforming stuff from both parents, but the applications > working at the level of the parent archetypes shall be able to use this data > seamlessly. Maybe ridiculous but I want to name it as > 'multiple-generalization' :D > > Hi Koray,
now I understand what you want. You want the 'inheritance-flattened' form of a specialisation archetype - i.e with everything in it due to all parents. This happens to be the current form of archeypes anyway. We are converting over to the differential form used in object-oriented programming very soon (in .adls files), but the flat form will still be avalable (.adl files), generated and validated rather than directly created as they are today. In the current form of the .adl file we don't mention the lineage of parents all the way to the top. It would be easy enough to do, although I don't quite see what use it would be. - thomas
