> Java allows a
> class to implement more than one interface in this way a class can
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> So the question is that is it alright to say that java does not
> support multiple inheritance?
Yes. With interfaces, you do not *inherit* functionality.
Edwin Martin

Signature
http://www.bitstorm.org/edwin/en/
> this is my first post since i joined the group a week ago.
BTW, I would have found your post a lot easier to read if you'd added spaces
after the punctuation in the usual way.
> Though it is true that one cannot extend more than one class at a time
> which makes perfect sense
> since all the classes in java are derived from Object class and
> multiple extensions would
> cause multiple objects of Object to exist in the code which could be
> undesirable.
There are other approaches to multiple inheritance (MI) that don't use the C++
mechanism. In C++ terms, every base class could be 'virtual', for instance. I
suspect (or rather, hope) that if Java had been defined to have MI, then the
designers would not have duplicated C++'s overcomplicated and fragile semantics
in this respect.
> So it is true that allowing multiple
> extensions would have caused more problems
> than it could solve.
This is probably true, but the difficulties are more likely (in my guess as to
how the Java designers were thinking) to be over-complication of the language
for /users/ of the language, rather than for /implementors/ of it. MI is not
widely regarded as a Good Thing (though there are dissenting opinions -- my
own, for instance ;-).
> So the question is that is it alright to say that java does not
> support multiple inheritance?
It depends on what /sort/ of inheritance you are talking about. Java allows
inheritance of multiple /types/ (though the interface mechanism, as you noted),
but does not allow multiple inheritance of /implementation/. Java takes a
moderately confused approach to types, in that both interfaces /and/ class
names can be used as type names, yet classes are (or perhaps should be) more
about /implementation/ than about type. If you consider a hypothetical
Java-like language that only allowed interface names (and primitives) to be
used as type names, then classes would be used only for implementing behaviour
(not for specifying the externally visible API -- the type) then it would be
clearer how that language had MI for types, and SI for implementations. Still,
for most purposes, if MI is discussed, the context is more likely to be about
implementation inheritance, so -- without further clarification -- it would be
normal to say that Java does not have MI. (But if you say it on this newsgroup
then /someone/ is bound to start going on about interfaces, so it is probably
easier in the long run to be clear about which kind of inheritance you are
talking about if you make that kind of statement ;-)
-- chris
PS. My own opinion is that MI is fine for type, and it is also fine for
implementation -- the problems start when you try to mix both kinds of MI at
once, as in C++.
> So the question is that is it alright to say that java does not
> support multiple inheritance?
It is. Inheritance differs from implementation
In the case of multiple inheritance, superclass1::method() differs from
superclass2::method().
In the case of multiple implementation of the same method, interface1.method()
does not differ from interface2.method(). Both are the same method.
Greetings, Leon.
> hi everyone
> this is my first post since i joined the group a week ago.
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>
> nirmal.
Hey, if you define a duck to be a pig, then pigs can fly.
> So the question is that is it alright to say that java does not
> support multiple inheritance?
Yes.
Lucy - 20 Jun 2005 17:00 GMT
> > So the question is that is it alright to say that java does not
> > support multiple inheritance?
>
> Yes.
al·right
al·right (ôl-rìt¹) adverb
Non-Standard.
All right: "Alright, it might be fun to hunt tigers" (Carl Icahn). See Usage
Note at all right.
Hal Rosser - 20 Jun 2005 22:48 GMT
> All right: "Alright, it might be fun to hunt tigers" (Carl Icahn). See Usage
> Note at all right.
might be fun to hunt tigers - till you find one. He may have the fun. and
his next meal is you.