atom feed19 messages in net.java.dev.openjfx-compiler.devRe: Mixin inheritance
FromSent OnAttachments
Brian GoetzMar 13, 2009 11:50 am 
Michael AzziMar 13, 2009 12:43 pm 
Brian GoetzMar 13, 2009 1:20 pm 
Michael AzziMar 13, 2009 1:42 pm 
Weiqi GaoMar 14, 2009 6:24 am 
Kim TopleyMar 14, 2009 7:40 am 
Robert FieldMar 15, 2009 12:53 pm 
Brian GoetzMar 16, 2009 11:18 am 
Brian GoetzMar 16, 2009 11:19 am 
Kim TopleyMar 16, 2009 12:21 pm 
Weiqi GaoMar 16, 2009 7:37 pm 
Brian GoetzMar 18, 2009 11:32 am 
Michael AzziMar 18, 2009 11:56 am 
Weiqi GaoMar 18, 2009 7:09 pm 
Brian GoetzMar 20, 2009 9:11 pm 
Brian GoetzMar 20, 2009 9:12 pm 
Brian GoetzMar 20, 2009 9:18 pm 
Weiqi GaoMay 3, 2009 7:31 pm 
Brian GoetzMay 3, 2009 7:52 pm 
Subject:Re: Mixin inheritance
From:Brian Goetz (Bria@Sun.COM)
Date:Mar 20, 2009 9:12:55 pm
List:net.java.dev.openjfx-compiler.dev

Also, on a separate note, would you see any value in using "mixin" instead of
"extends" when mixing in mixins, and only use "extends" for extending real
classes? The one advantage that I see, is that by only looking at the class
declaration I can tell right there which are the mixins, and which is the class.
Plus, we are not adding any new keywords to support this.

Scala does this, and Java does this to separate superclasses from interfaces. We considered this, and decided that it was more "FX-y" to not make the programmer have to utter different specific incantations for different types of inheritance.