From virtual extension methods to mixins

[David Holmes]

On 10/07/2012 5:06 PM, James Shaw wrote:
> 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'?

google: C++ diamond problem

It relates to multiple-inheritance of a base class through different paths.

David