> Sorry, I missed your point. You want to use multiple virtual inheritance. > Before doing so, we have to evaluate all possible consequences and > side-effects. The obvious side effect is CINT. I have already met with this. If you create an object in CINT, pointer to it returns as long. When outside it casts to TObject it is completely wrong (in case of multiple inheritance). I do not see how it could be solved. So we must avoid multiple inheritance. Anyway, if Java can survive without it, why we can not? Victor Rene Brun wrote: > > Hi Jacek, > Sorry, I missed your point. You want to use multiple virtual inheritance. > Before doing so, we have to evaluate all possible consequences and > side-effects. > Coming back to your question in 1997 (::) , this problem is now solved > since all collections can be named. Use TCollection::SetName > when you want to name a collection. (and GetName). > > Rene Brun > > On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Jacek M. Holeczek wrote: > > > Hi, > > This is a very old story ... . It began in year 1997 : > > http://root.cern.ch/root/roottalk/roottalk97/0086.html > > As you can see it is often difficult to build a user's class from more > > then one root classes, especially these more sophisticated. This could be > > cured by making some of the most "basic" classes virtual (TObject, TNamed, > > ... any other ... ?). > > Jacek. > > P.S. Of course this can also be solved by the user if she/he writes a lot > > of her/his own code, but ... I would prefer some "code > > re-usability". Jacek. > > -- Victor M. Perevoztchikov perev@bnl.gov perev@vxcern.cern.ch Brookhaven National Laboratory MS 510A PO Box 5000 Upton NY 11973-5000 tel office : 631-344-7894; fax 631-344-4206; home 631-345-2690
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 11:50:34 MET