XPost: alt.os.development   
   From: maxim@storagecraft.com   
      
   > void Foo::Baz ()   
   > {   
   >    Bar (); // This dispatches, but it shouldn't,   
   >         // because dispatch already happened to come to Baz   
   > }   
      
   But this allows a lot of good stuff!   
      
   For instance, the simple descendant can choose to override Bar() only, and the   
   complex descendant can override the whole Baz() and avoid using any of Bar()   
   implementations at all.   
      
   For instance, imagine Bar() to be GetColor(), and Baz() to be Draw(). Simple   
   controls can override only GetColor, while the complex owner-draw one will   
   override Draw() and not use any GetColor() at all.   
      
   This is flexibility. What is evil in this?   
      
   > > Why? The C++ axiom of "only the structure types are objects" is very easy   
   to   
   > > comprehend and follow, it is not complex.   
   >   
   > Yep, Orwellian "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than   
   > others."   
      
   Why is this bad in real-world practice? Can you show the practical case where   
   it is bad?   
      
   > In practice it means a manual implementation of cascaded dispatch, with a   
   > good chance to have some combinations undefined, wrong or self-recursive.   
      
   What languages can define this in the language itself? What is the syntax?   
      
   --   
   Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP   
   StorageCraft Corporation   
   maxim@storagecraft.com   
   http://www.storagecraft.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)