J3/03-240 Date: 19 Aug 03 To: J3 From: Richard Maine Subject: Description of inheritance All page:line refs herein refer to J3/03-007. Paper N1524 (J3/03-201), in its discussion of paper 03-188r1, complains about the description of inheritance and overriding. In particular, we can't seem to make up our mind whether an overriding binding stops the parent binding from being inherited or not. I think our words are self-contradictory and rely on the reader understanding what we meant instead of what we said. This paper proposes words that I think actually say what we mean. I think that what we mean to say is that a binding from the parent is inherited *UNLESS* it is overridden. That doesn't seem hard to say, so I propose that we say it. While on the subject, we correct the omission in the glossary definition. [432:27] "Components or" -> "Type parameters, components, or" [59:10-11] Replace first sentence with "An extended type includes all of the type parameters, all of the components, and the nonoverridden (4.5.6.2) nonfinal procedure bindings of its parent type." [60:2-4] Delete "inherited" twice, resulting in "If a nongeneric binding specified in a type definition has the same binding name as a binding from the parent type then the binding specified in the type definition <> the one from the parent type." [60:5,7,15] "inherited"->"overridden" (3 times)