"Mark van Gulik" <ghoul@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2caa87f8.0308121317.63025522@posting.google.com...
> "Peter van Rooijen" <peter@vanrooijen.com> wrote in message
news:<3f38f235$0$49110$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>...
> > "Guillermo Schwarz" <guillermo_schwarz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3f38e49d@news.totallyobjects.com...
> [...]
> > > or a more real example: a Dog is a Cat that barks
> > > instead of meows, so meow() calls bark().
> >
> > I've never seen code with such classes, much less it being called a
"real
> > example". Now I am sure you are kidding.
>
> How about OrderedCollection>>at:? Or Dictionary>>add: (if you think
> that one's ok, you must instead have a complaint with
> Dictionary>>select.

Mark,

I don't know which dialect this is in, but I think I understand your point.
I had not induced that Guillermo had this in mind. If I'm right it is the
same thing that Nathanael Shaerli has researched for Squeak and to some
people it's amazing how many funny inheritance things (such as blocking) are
going on in its collection library.

However, I don't think this (what Nathanael researched for his traits study)
is a result (or an example) of implementation inheritance. Rather it is
mostly a result of not having multiple inheritance.

But tell me which dialect I should look in and I can tell you exactly
without having to speculate what you might mean.

> Smalltalk has plenty of other meows and barks.
> It gets by, but there are some truly ancient potholes that will never
> be filled.

Perhaps you know some really good examples of II in a Smalltalk library.
That would be good, to have some examples we can all agree are II and then
can use to discuss how "good" or "bad" it is.

Regards,

Peter van Rooijen
Amsterdam