On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 12:17, chromatic wrote: > * Add a disambiguatey method to PoliceDog that dispatches > appropriately. (Insert handwavey "well you *could* do it this way or > you *might* do it that way.")
I agree, but given that the average user should probably not have to interact with the dispatching system just to say "my class uses class a's foo, not class b's foo", can I suggest: class a { method foo {...} } class b { method foo {...} } class c { does a; does b but a.foo; } the "but" disarms the compilation failure that A12 introduced, but only for that method. Every time you have such a conflict, you will have to disarm in this way. What MIGHT be a problem is: class c { does a but b.bar; does b but a.foo; } which requires the compiler to accept b.bar even though it has not yet seen the "does b". You could assert the other way around: class c { does a for <<bar baz>>; does b for <<foo biz>>; } which is kind of nifty looking, but some may blanch at the dual meaning for "for".... -- Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Senior Systems Engineer and Toolsmith "It's the sound of a satellite saying, 'get me down!'" -Shriekback