🚀 go-pugleaf

I've come across an apparent anomaly in the Eiffel inheritance mechanism.
I'm not really sure if this is a bug or if it is simply that Eiffel does
not behave in the way that I would expect.  It has to do with renaming an
inherited feature, and is perhaps best illustrated by example.  So here
goes:

I have three classes named ROOT_CLASS, A, and B, defined as follows:

root_class.e --

   class ROOT_CLASS
   inherit STD_FILES
   feature
      an_a: A; a_b: B; b_invoked_as_a: A;
      Create is do
	 an_a.Create; a_b.Create; b_invoked_as_a := a_b;
	 putstring("Calling A.f1:  "); an_a.f1;
	 putstring("Calling A.f2:  "); an_a.f2;
	 putstring("Calling B.f1:  "); a_b.f1;
	 putstring("Calling B.f2:  "); a_b.f2;
	 putstring("Calling B.f3 (which is really A.f1): "); a_b.f3;
	 putstring("Calling B.f1 through A's interface:  "); b_invoked_as_a.f1;
	 putstring("Calling B.f2 through A's interface:  "); b_invoked_as_a.f2
      end
   end

a.e --

   class A export f1, f2
   inherit STD_FILES
   feature
      f1 is do putstring("I am A.f1"); new_line end;
      f2 is do putstring("I am A.f2"); new_line end
   end

b.e --

   class B export f1, f2, f3
   inherit A rename f1 as f3 redefine f2
   feature
      f1 is do putstring("I am B.f1"); new_line end;
      f2 is do putstring("I am B.f2"); new_line end
   end

Results of Execution --

   Calling A.f1:  I am A.f1
   Calling A.f2:  I am A.f2
   Calling B.f1:  I am B.f1
   Calling B.f2:  I am B.f2
   Calling B.f3 (which is really A.f1): I am A.f1
   Calling B.f1 through A's interface:  I am A.f1
   Calling B.f2 through A's interface:  I am B.f2

The apparent anomaly is what happens when B.f1 is called through A's
interface.  I would have expected that regardless of what interface is
used, a call to B.f1 would execute the feature that B has defined as
its f1.  Yet here, when B is called through A's interface, the f1
feature executed is that which A defined as f1!  I suppose that some
argument could be made that this is appropriate behavior, but it surely
is contrary to what it is done in other object-oriented languages.

I wonder what Bertrand Meyer intended the behavior to be in this case?
Is this a bug or is it by design?  Do you comp.lang.eiffel readers have
an opinion as to whether this is or is not a bug?
--

Dave Robbins                    GTE Laboratories Incorporated
drobbins@gte.com                40 Sylvan Rd.
..!harvard!bunny!drobbins      Waltham, MA 02254