Hi Stephan,
1 Leave everything as is and force C++ client code to do the
disambiguation.
ugly, IMO (means: -0.5). For the moment probably acceptable, but I
expect more situations like those to arise once multiple inheritance is
widely used.
2 Make the changes proposed above, ignore the
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
Frank Schönheit wrote:
[...]
So, the question remains: Is it feasible to do what Jörg suggested:
Extend cppumaker so it disambiugates methods of interfaces which are
inherited indirectly multiple times? E.g., let
4 Make the cut and change the C++ UNO language binding in an
incompatible way by using virtual inheritance for interfaces. Ideally,
this would only be incompatible in that C++ code has to be recompiled,
but nothing else changes. It might be worthwhile to think this through
further
Hi Frank,
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
Are better solutions at least possible in theory (by, say, changing the
generated C++ header for XFoo to include a disambiguated
getPropertyValue method)?
Adding (still pure virtual) redeclarations of base interface methods in
the
Hi,
using the new UNO features, in particular multiple inheritance, to
excess :), I stumbled upon the following problem:
Let's say we have
interface XBar1 {
interface XPropertySet;
};
interface XBar2 {
interface XPropertySet;
}
interface XFoo {
interface XBar1;
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
Hi,
using the new UNO features, in particular multiple inheritance, to
excess :), I stumbled upon the following problem:
Let's say we have
interface XBar1 {
interface XPropertySet;
};
interface XBar2 {
interface XPropertySet;
}
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
using the new UNO features, in particular multiple inheritance, to
excess :), I stumbled upon the following problem:
Let's say we have
interface XBar1 {
interface XPropertySet;
};
interface XBar2 {
interface XPropertySet;
