Re: Noob First Post

[Eric Bezault]

On 28/11/2021 22:25, Raphael Mack wrote:
> Am Sonntag, dem 28.11.2021 um 22:09 +0100 schrieb Paolo Redaelli:
> > Let's start with the easy one: why ISE chose the "inherit {NONE}"
> > syntax
> > for non-conforming inheritance?
> >
> > I mean the first question it will raise could be "so can I write
> > inherit
> > {FOO} to limit conformity to type FOO?"
> >
> > I can't find a rationale behind "inherit {NONE}" but I will gladly
> > read
> > an explanation...
>
> Interesting topic, yes. Personally I prefer insert over "inherit
> {NONE}", but finally it is not important at all and if it helps we can
> easily^1 allow it as an alternative... This should not be the reason
> for keeping the Eiffel community(ies) split. 


Yes, that was my point of view when working on the Gobo compiler
while Liberty Eiffel was dormant: let's stop asking about rational,
let's stop about arguing which solution is better, and instead let's
make things interoperable. Even though the compilation techniques are
different in Gobo and EiffelStudio, the internal representations of
objects are different etc., the Gobo compiler is using exactly the
same kernel classes as EiffelStudio. This means that the Gobo compiler
not only tries to support the same dialect as EiffelStudio, it is
also source code compatible (not just interface compatible)  with the
most common classes. At the end of the day, I'm more happy being
able to use already existing Eiffel libraries out there with the
compiler, than always arguing about what should be (or should not
be) the next best construct to add to the Eiffel language, arguing
about this syntax versus this other syntax. We all saw during the
last two decades that this kind of discussions does not help
making the Eiffel community prosper.


--
Eric Bezault
mailto:ericb@gobosoft.com
http://www.gobosoft.com