🚀 go-pugleaf

OOSC says that if a class inherits a feature named f from two parents,
then at least one must be renamed (unless they refer to the same feature
in a common ancestor).  Why isn't it legal for the class to redefine that
name?

Obviously the types of the new definition would have to conform to the types
of both originals.

I suppose that the features in the parents would have to have compatible 
preconditions and postconditions, and this couldn't be guaranteed by
the language.  But should the language reject the possibility of redefinition
in the cases when it would be OK?

Comments?
 Dave Berry, LFCS, Edinburgh Uni.      db%lfcs.ed.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk

"The thought of someone sharing one's own preferences without also sharing
 one's aversions strikes most people as utterly inconceivable." - C. A. Tripp.