| |||||||||||||
GCC 4.6.0 releasedGCC 4.6.0 releasedPosted Apr 8, 2011 17:57 UTC (Fri) by cmccabe (guest, #60281)In reply to: GCC 4.6.0 released by daglwn Parent article: GCC 4.6.0 released
from Wikipedia:
> In object-oriented programming languages, a mixin is a class that provides
So it's not about relationships between types. It is about code reuse.
Bruce Eckel suggests a way of implementing mixins in C++ using templates:
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=132988
I would suggest yet another: private inheritance.
(Log in to post comments)
GCC 4.6.0 released Posted Apr 8, 2011 18:35 UTC (Fri) by daglwn (subscriber, #65432) [Link]
I've used CRTP as well and find it useful. I also find mixins as relationship useful. I my mind, inheritance is about relationships. For functionality, I would agree with GoF and you that composition is generally a better path. I very rarely use private inheritance. I honestly can't think of a situation where I've found it absolutely necessary.
But in any case, I think the discussion leads us to a place where general MI is useful, even with the pitfalls. Pointers in C have a similar usefulness/pitfall tradeoff. I like the fact the C++ is flexible like this. I wish it were more flexible than it is! :)
GCC 4.6.0 released Posted Apr 11, 2011 0:30 UTC (Mon) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
Well, as I said before, I think being able to inherit from multiple (fully) abstract base classes is useful. I have never found a good use for inheriting from multiple non-abstract base classes. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Anyway, language design is an endless process. It really comes down to who what languages are most successful in the marketplace, and in the open source world. My philosophy is to use the right tool for the job.
|
|||||||||||||