--7sNJi5F14xZguEJdQ9Z
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, 2007-10-06 at 21:07 +0900, Trans wrote:
> Seems to me, the term "MI" can be avoided --it can be called something
> else, but the fact remains, and it is confirmed by implmentation after
> implementation: MIXINS ARE MI. The only difference is that Mixins are
> hobbled by an artifical class/module distiction.

The inclusion of modules is also forcibly linearized[1] to avoid the
ambiguities which would otherwise be present with MI, which only works
because modules don't dictate the fundamental object representation like
classes do.

The class/module distinction is the only thing that lets us have any
kind of MI at all without severe ambiguities.

-mental

[1] i.e. the inheritance graph is made linear by ensuring that each
module only appears once in a class' ancestry

--7sNJi5F14xZguEJdQ9Z
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBHB+A+SuZBmZzm14ERAgMmAJ9YhEKhNK1bd6E9n7z3LDNxTxCSQACfcllc
KtfqzBpLJF/gI9d5iBT3iaEr3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--7sNJi5F14xZguEJdQ9Z--