mwieder wrote:
Hopefully that's a typo and not a circular reference.
So
A
|
BC
|
D
Is perfectly reasonable. B has access to A, C has access to A, D has access
to C and A. But not B.
To use a textbook example,
Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote
> but the example was
>
> Parent X (a behavior for)
> Child Y and Child X,
> where Child X was also a behavior for
> Child A
Hopefully that's a typo and not a circular reference.
So
A
|
BC
|
D
Is perfectly reasonable. B
Mark Weider wrote:
That is indeed classical inheritance.
Multiple inheritance is properly not allowed in LiveCode and would look like
this
Behavior_button A
Behavior Button B
Behavior Button C
# has both button A and button B assigned as behaviors
Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote
> Theoretically I could have (I will declare these as objects, but of course
> now we can also use livecodescript text only stacks)
>
> Behavior_button A
>
> Behavior Buttons B and C
> # both have behavior A assigned
>
> Button D
># with button C
Mark Wieder" wrote:
Well, most of the article rants about multiple inheritance, which is
indeed a bad idea. But of course you know that's different from chained
behaviors, so no worries there.
BR: actually I don't know how that is different, probably I just don't
understand it
On 09/11/2016 07:22 PM, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote:
A bit OT, but this was interesting to me..
https://www.quora.com/Is-inheritance-bad-practice-in-OOP
"kinda" validated my gut feeling about nesting behaviors
Well, most of the article rants about multiple inheritance, which is
indeed
