Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I think a warning is missing if I create a table without OIDS that
inherits from a table with oids:
don't you think a warning shall to be raised here ?
Nope ... this is not different from the behavior for merging
Gaetano,
I've been using C++ for 15 years and Java for 7. I like them both. Every
language has its pros and cons. C++ can be extremely powerful in the hands
of someone who knows how to use it.
I actually wrote the first version of Pl/Java in C++. However, I got strong
advice to rewrite it using p
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Hello,
You all are behind... Python is king.
Just to throw more fuel on the fire. Relvar inheritance is,
according to Chris Date, one of the two Great Blunders in database
engineering over the past twenty years.
Multiple Domain Inheritance: Yes
Relation Variable Inheritanc
Hello,
You all are behind... Python is king.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Greg,
You don't like Java/C#. I do.
What appear here is that you hate C++.
I'm a C++ developer since long time now, and I can not use JAVA and or C#
just for a couple of reason:
1)
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Greg,
You don't like Java/C#. I do.
What appear here is that you hate C++.
I'm a C++ developer since long time now, and I can not use JAVA and or C#
just for a couple of reason:
1) Java was supposed to be platform compatible: in thereality is not really true.
2) I can not us
Greg,
You don't like Java/C#. I do. There's not much point arguing about it.
You feel that abstract classes are equivalent to interfaces provided you
have multiple inheritance, I don't since I'm in favor of a totally clean
interface/implementation separation.
Now you bring in the Java security
"Thomas Hallgren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, it does lack interfaces and no, interfaces are definitely *not* a
> substitute for multiple inheritance.
I assure you that interfaces were put into Java specifically as a substitute
for full-blown multiple inheritance. The normal way to descri
"Greg Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Thomas Hallgren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > From an OO semantics point of view, I still regard Java and C# much more
> > elaborate than both C++ and Common Lisp. The latter lacks interfaces and
> > different level
"Thomas Hallgren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From an OO semantics point of view, I still regard Java and C# much more
> elaborate than both C++ and Common Lisp. The latter lacks interfaces and
> different levels of protection.
It doesn't "lack" interfaces. It has actual multiple inheritance.
"Greg Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Thomas Hallgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Try to use a similar construct in a more elaborate OO-language (like
Java, C#,
> > etc.) and you will get an error like:
>
> Just as a point of reference, Java and C# are
Thomas Hallgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Try to use a similar construct in a more elaborate OO-language (like Java, C#,
> etc.) and you will get an error like:
Just as a point of reference, Java and C# are not "more elaborate" object
systems. For Java at least being *less* elaborate was an
Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Speaking in generic OO terms, using inheritance, you cannot remove
attributes that are present in the generalisation. If B inherits A, an
instance of B is per definition also an instance of A. Thus, you must
alwasy
be able to cast a B into an A. In sho
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Speaking in generic OO terms, using inheritance, you cannot remove
attributes that are present in the generalisation. If B inherits A, an
instance of B is per definition also an instance of A. Thus, you must alwasy
be able to cast a B into an A. In short, If you don't want th
"Gaetano Mendola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>I think a warning is missing if I create a table without OIDS that
> >>inherits from a table with oids:
> >
> >
> >>don't you think a warning shall to be raised here ?
> >
> >
Tom Lane wrote:
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I think a warning is missing if I create a table without OIDS that
inherits from a table with oids:
don't you think a warning shall to be raised here ?
Nope ... this is not different from the behavior for merging duplicate
column definit
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think a warning is missing if I create a table without OIDS that
> inherits from a table with oids:
> don't you think a warning shall to be raised here ?
Nope ... this is not different from the behavior for merging duplicate
column definitions. You
16 matches
Mail list logo