1. Yes, you can fake it, a) but do you like fakes? b) some logic may depend on inheritance itself 2. Yes, I've seen a union thing, but.. that's basically a workaround ;) I guess everything is possible without inheritance, but it was invented because it's handy, if something can be solved elegantly by inheritance, why would someone need to write ugly workarounds? Protobuf is cool, but without inheritance a lot of audience won't simply use it. __ regards
On 17 мар, 22:10, Austin Ziegler <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:42 PM, ctapobep > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Inheritance has a lot of usages in our day-to-day work, and thus > > including it into a feature list is a must from my perspective. I have > > two use cases in hand right now: > > 1. Historically we were using another lib that supported inheritance > > and a lot of classes were written that leverage this feature. I don't > > like that lib, but I can't move to protobuf simply because it doesn't > > support inheritance. > > You can still fake out inheritance with composition. Whatever your > library is that you've wrapped around, you can do this. > > > 2. I need to have a grid structure, that may contain any type: String, > > int, double, etc. To do so I'd like to have a List<BasicType> as a raw > > in a grid, where BasicType is an ancestor for IntType, DoubleType, > > StringType, etc. I can't imagine implementing this elegantly without > > inheritance. > > That's basically a union. > (http://code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/docs/techniques.html#union) > > -a > -- > Austin Ziegler * [email protected] * > [email protected]http://www.halostatue.ca/*http://twitter.com/halostatue -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
