On Nov 2, 2005, at 9:02 PM, Jonathan Lang wrote:
Let's say you have this:
role A {method foo() { code1; } }
role B {method foo() { code2; } }
role C does A does B {
method foo() { A::foo(); }
method bar() { B::foo(); }
}
Should the following be valid?
role D does C { method foo() { B::foo(); } }
IMHO, it shouldn't, because D doesn't do B.
Not valid in what way? Should this be a fatal error?
Are you implying that B is not local to D, so it cannot use it? that
somehow disambiguation must be done using one of your local subroles
only?
I think this is too restrictive, D should be able to freely
disambiguate or override using anything it want's to. It need not be
related at all to it's subroles.
Stevan
