Re: the deadly hypercube of death, or: handling permissions

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 14:42 +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> Scribit Marcus Brinkmann dies 27/04/2006 hora 14:24:
> > However, more importantly, I don't know what you mean by wrapper
> > object.  We want to limit ourselves to single inheritence.
> 
> I think I was thinking to something that cannot be achieved with single
> inheritance, in fact... That is, an object that could mutate its
> interface to add (or remove) methods when it is brougth the associated
> capabilities. I think this isn't possible in Coyotos, is it?

If the object you are referring to is implemented by a process, then
PLEASE do not call it a "wrapper". The term "wrapper" is already taken.

> I'm not sure. How many times in a classical software are you needing two
> or more access modes to something?

Almost universally. In practice, write almost always implies read. The
bits may be separate, but the usage pattern is that 'w' implies 'r'.


shap