On 4 November 2012 16:55, Ross Konsolebox <lists / ruby-forum.com> wrote:

> Peter Hickman wrote in post #1082774:
> > Provide working code in the language of your choice that demonstrates a
> > problem that is better served by multiple inheritance than single
> > inheritance and you will have proven your point.
>
> I believe I had explained enough. If it's about examples there are many
> around the web.


I have googled and cannot find an example of a problem that is better
served by multiple inheritance than single inheritance. If you know of one
then I would be grateful if you could provide the url.


> If one is interested to know more about the advantages
> of having multiple inheritance there certainly are many around the web.
>

Now you are avoiding the question. I am well aware of the advantages of
multiple inheritance, that is not what I asked. What I asked for was
"a problem that is better served by multiple inheritance than
single inheritance". You have not provided one and therefore any hand
wavy arguments you put forward only serve to convince me that you do not
know of even a single instance.


> It's not that I can't prove anything.


Good, then show me the code.


> Come to think of it I could actually give you a summary of those
> classes.
>
> Updater
> OneTimeUpdater < Updater
> DaemonUpdater < Updater
>
>
Again with the hand waving. Without seeing the code I am unable to see how
this could be refactored to make it easily implemented with single
inheritance. Likewise I cannot see how difficult it might be and go "oh
he's right, this would be easier with multiple inheritance".

Of course I could just take you word for it ... never gonna happen