Dan Sugalski wrote: > Should it be the fallback *only* if an object doesn't have its own ISA, or > should we walk the class ISA if walking the object ISA fails? I can see it > being sensible either way. Oh. Good question. I'm not sure how it's done in prototype-OO langs. I would think that if instance.ISA is set, then, in effect, I'm saying "I am my own class!" Specifically, it would bizarre (in a cool kind of way ;-) for there to be two inheritance trees - one defined by my own .ISA list, and one defined by the class into which I'm blessed. -- John Porter
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object Dan Sugalski
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object Mark Koopman
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object Dan Sugalski
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object John Porter
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object (the ::: ... David L. Nicol
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object Mark J. Reed
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object David L. Nicol
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object John Porter
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object Mark J. Reed
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object Dan Sugalski
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object John Porter
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object Dan Sugalski
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object John Porter
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object David L. Nicol
- RE: Multiple classifications of an object David Whipp
- Class::Object (was Re: Multiple classifications of ... Michael G Schwern
- RE: Multiple classifications of an object Garrett Goebel
- RE: Multiple classifications of an object Dan Sugalski
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object David L. Nicol
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object Dan Sugalski
- RE: Multiple classifications of an object Brent Dax