Received: from ATHENA-AS-WELL.MIT.EDU by po7.MIT.EDU (5.61/4.7) id AA04105; Thu, 4 Feb 93 11:39:25 EST
Received: from CECI.MIT.EDU by Athena.MIT.EDU with SMTP
	id AA07403; Thu, 4 Feb 93 11:39:22 EST
Message-Id: <9302041639.AA07403@Athena.MIT.EDU>
Received: from ITHAKE.MIT.EDU by ceci.mit.edu id AA15025g; Thu, 4 Feb 93 11:39:29 EST
To: aybee@Athena.MIT.EDU
Cc: jud@ceci.mit.edu
Subject: Another syntax question
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 93 11:42:50 -0500
From: Judson Harward <jud@ceci.mit.edu>


Do we really need Unique?

A regular class definition looks like this

	Class classTag : possibleParents
	{
		...
	} instance, ...;

A unique class/instance definition looks

	Unique parent instance
	{
		...
	};

First problem is that we haven't given a way for a unique class to inherit from
multiple parents.  Second why not say that a class definition without a tag
must be a unique definition, and must be accompanied by at least one instance
name.  Unexpected advantage:  we can declare multiple unique instances with
different names.  Class would still need a random unique name.

Is this clear?  Here's an example.

	Class : possibleParents
	{
		...
	} instance, ...;



Let me know what you think.

						Jud