On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 2008, at 11:31 PM, Shane Isbell wrote: > > >>> And I've said multiple times that that isn't an adequate definition. >>> Jason's post provided a better clue but still doesn't define it. Your >>> definition is about like me telling you that I am heading a JCP committee >>> to >>> define a new Java entity called mixin and in it you will be able to use >>> all >>> the existing java grammar but I tell you nothing more than that. Would >>> you >>> have a clue how that is useful? >>> >> >> No it wouldn't be useful. But if you said a mixin is like an abstract >> class >> and all it's elements can be inherited exactly like an abstract class, >> then >> I would have a pretty good clue. >> >> > Yes and no. Yes, that would be understandable but it would also be > inaccurate. The problem here is that you are introducing multiple > inheritance into the mix so that analogy doesn't fit. If we are talking about linearized inheritance, then the analogy is correct. Maven doesn't currently support that and I think that is a very good thing. The super pom is a type of multiple (linearized) inheritance. Shane
