From virtual extension methods to mixins

[James Shaw]

On 10 July 2012 02:02, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:

> Yes, this is what I call the "virtual field pattern."  It seems perfectly
> reasonable to me, because the classes that mix you in have to consent by
> providing the {get,set}Peeker methods.  (Also, by the nature of interface
> method merging, it addresses the diamond problem as if all base classes
> were "virtual".)
>
>
>
Can you explain what you mean by 'diamond problem'?