Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!kapson
From: kapson@netcom.com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Has C++ had its day?
Message-ID: <kapsonDB0ME9.5ys@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
References: <3sn56n$aeo@News1.mcs.com> <1995Jun29.201630.9031@rcmcon.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 02:18:09 GMT
Lines: 27
Sender: kapson@netcom14.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object:34083 comp.lang.c++:136125 comp.lang.smalltalk:25302 comp.lang.misc:22206

In article <3sv1bp$26o@News1.mcs.net> jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
[snip]
>>>class inherit class AbstractArray;
>>>inherit AbstractArray;
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>These two statements confuse me.  I assume that they mean that
>>String inherits from AbstractArray.  Fine.  But why two statements?
>>
>@@@@@
>
>The first statement is used to specify that the "class methods" are
>inherited by the String class.
>
>The second statement indicates that the "istance methods" are inherited.
>
>C+@ has the ability to selectively inherit methods and to "map"
>method names. Neither of these are show above. The above statements
>cause wholesale inheritance of AbstractArray.

Does this imply, then, that C+@ provides one the ability to inherit
class methods from one class while inheriting instance methods from
a second, unrelated class?  I'm struggling to see how this fits into
the traditional mold of using inheritance to support the "IS-A"
relation...

John
