🚀 go-pugleaf

Jim Adcock writes:
> |And a "base subobject" bears an analogous relationship to the
> |containing object(s).  
> 
> I disagree.  I consider the analogy to be sufficiently weak 
> that I don't think a consistent set of rules can be developed
> for both base parts and other objects that reasonably captures
> the behavior of both categories.

It always seemed to me that the very term "base class subobject" was
making the analogy, and pointing to the fact that there were other kinds of
subobjects, i.e. elements and members.

If you don't think base class subobjects can be objects and still
support a reasonable set of rules regarding objects, how about saying
more clearly what's the conflict with the present rules?  Your multiple 
inheritance example is interesting, but do you think it indicates any
difficulties for Jerry Schwarz's and my reading of the rules?

(You have indeed pointed out one conflict with the present rules.  1.3 of the
working paper says that an object occupies a contiguous set of bytes,
which conflicts with the usual implementation techniques for virtual bases
of base classes.  But it's easy enough to make an exception to this rule, for
base class subobjects.)
--
Prescott K. Turner, Jr.
Liant Software Corp. (developers of LPI languages)
959 Concord St., Framingham, MA 01701 USA    (508) 872-8700
UUCP: uunet!lpi!pkt                          Internet: pkt@lpi.liant.com