To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=74720





------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Feb 21 12:16:10 +0000 
2007 -------
The UNO type system sticks to a somewhat minimalistic design---keep things
simple so that they can be mapped easily into various language bindings.  Two
consequences of this design are that (a) all the methods of an interface type,
inherited or not, form a flat set, so you cannot distinguish between
inherited-this-way.getPropertySetInfo and inherited-that-way.getPropertySetInfo,
and (b) no two methods in that set can have the same name (even if they have
different signatures).

To support your special case, one could imagine to extend the UNO type system as
follows:  Given two different interfaces I1 and I2 which each directly define a
method named M, an interface I3 can still (indirectly) inherit both I1 and I2
given that the signatures and semantics of the two methods M are equivalent.

This would imply that the concept of semantic method equivalence would have to
be incorporated into the UNO type system in some way, and that language bindings
would have to cope with such multiply-inherited methods.  The question is
whether this complication would be worth it, i.e., whether there are enough
published occurrences that match your scenario (unpublished occurrences are, at
least theoretically, solved by method renaming).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to