A problem about tiebreaker rule in inheritance

[cyberbaixing]

Thanks, Jecel and Gordon:

But I am still puzzled. Why the tiebreaker rule doesn't work here? 
Isn't object E sending the message f? Is D right on the path from B 
to E? 


> That is exactly the error you would get when trying "B f".Actually, 
the 
> tiebreaker rule doesn't even come into play here. Now if the 
expression 
> was just "f" inside a method in either C or D executing as a result 
of 
> sending a message to B (still with me? ;-) *then* the tiebreaker 
rule 
> would allow you to choose correctly between C>>f and D>>f.

May I understand your illustration like this?

If C had a method named h which contains f. D doesn't have such a 
method. So when I send a message B f, then based on the tiebreaker 
rule, C f will be chosed. Is it right? If so, the tiebreaker rule 
seems only work between the parents of an object. It doesn't work 
among the grandparents of an object. :p

Best Regards,
Xing