At 03:07 PM 6/27/2001 -0400, John Porter wrote: >Anyway, as long as the class-level @ISA (or Class.ISA, hopefully) >is the fall-back default for any instance that doesn't have its >own .ISA set, then current semantics are retained. Should it be the fallback *only* if an object doesn't have its own ISA, or should we walk the class ISA if walking the object ISA fails? I can see it being sensible either way. Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object John Porter
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object Dan Sugalski
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object Mark Koopman
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object Dan Sugalski
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object John Porter
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object (the ::: ... David L. Nicol
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object Mark J. Reed
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object David L. Nicol
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object John Porter
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object Mark J. Reed
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object Dan Sugalski
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object John Porter
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object Dan Sugalski
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object John Porter
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object David L. Nicol
- RE: Multiple classifications of an object David Whipp
- Class::Object (was Re: Multiple classifications of ... Michael G Schwern
- RE: Multiple classifications of an object Garrett Goebel
- RE: Multiple classifications of an object Dan Sugalski
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object David L. Nicol
- Re: Multiple classifications of an object Dan Sugalski