[Posible SPAM] Re: [self-interest] Public and private visibility in Self

J. Baltasar García Perez-Schofield jbgarcia at uvigo.es
Fri Jan 11 16:14:25 UTC 2008

	Hi !

	Thank you or your answer, Jecel. Please excuse me, my SPAM-filter had
buried this message for long time.

	I understand that the tie-breaker rule was abandoned because of that
complexity (it wasn't obvious which slot was to be called), but still
don't see the point for privacity. Is the only problem that it was
included in the pack with the multiple inheritance feature and the
tie-breaker rule?

> One alternative would have been to remove some of
> these while leaving some others (like privacy, for example) in,

	So I suppose that privacy, by itself, was not a problem.

>  but it
> was fealt that this was the wrong direction in general and that it was
> better to leave them all out until a proper solution could be found.

	I see.

> One experiment in this area was an extension of Self called "Us". 

	I'll study that language. Thank you again !

	Salud !


PBC -- J. Baltasar García Perez-Schofield
jbgarcia en uvigo de es  http://webs.uvigo.es/jbgarcia/
Dep. Informática, Universidad de Vigo, España (Spain)

More information about the Self-interest mailing list