Peter Hickman wrote in post #1082753:
> Well the example you gave at the head of this thread is pretty
> meaningless.

Depends on one's principles. Also, perhaps it's all because I just 
wanted to give a brief example. I could give real situation examples but 
I find that unnecessary. Also please try to give attention and not evade 
the details I give at least for the sake of keeping this thread 
discussion shorter.

> It is always possible to create a convoluted problem that is hard to
> implement in any language. My experience in not finding a need for
> multiple  inheritance comes from writing code that people will pay for. No one 
has presented my with a genuine problem (as opposed to a puzzle problem)
> where single inheritance was inadequate.

It's not always about as-long-as-it-works theories. Using workarounds is 
not that bad, probably, but sometimes they're too fixed, too hard to 
apply, or too heavy by size that it could have been easier if one 
feature was available.

It also depends on how you love the design of your craft. Not all 
projects are made for the sake of monetary profit. Not that I'm saying 
it's all about craftiness.

Simplicity though safe doesn't always yield simple results. Sometimes 
due to its limits a more complex output is made.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.