[ENH] Describe Inheritance Principle in Common Principles

[Lestropie]

Currently attempting to revive BEP016, after having had #1003 rejected via #1339 and alternative solution #1280 rejected also.

In #946 I rewrote the Inheritance Principle. Previous text sort of tried to both explain what it was and how it worked and why all together; with that change I focused on defining a set of rules that were both human-readable and actionable for software developers.

However it jumps out at me now that the specification goes straight into those systematized rules with zero introduction of what the Inheritance Principle actually is or why it exists. So here I've tried to give a very succinct explanation. It only needs to be a user-friendly introduction, so doesn't need to be hardcore optimized, happy to take on modifications.

[effigies]

This reads very cleanly to me.

[arokem]

+1 thanks for writing this!

[yarikoptic]

Overall great, just one minor suggestion

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 87.92%. Comparing base (01025da) to head (b7a3ab6).
Report is 11 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1807   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   87.92%   87.92%           
=======================================
  Files          16       16           
  Lines        1375     1375           
=======================================
  Hits         1209     1209           
  Misses        166      166           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[Lestropie]

Good catch @yarikoptic.

Re-running CI has overcome the prior failure due to a dead link.

[sappelhoff]

This is a great addition, thanks a lot!

[effigies]

@Lestropie Are you happy with the changes? I think both the current text and the proposed fix have been up long enough that there's been plenty opportunity to object.

[Lestropie]

Suggest a minor extension to contextualise why such an order is important, partly because it gives the opportunity to recommend against it. Happy for you to merge with or without b7a3ab6.

[effigies]

I would not add a recommendation here. That should be paired with a validator warning, and I'm not positive people would agree that it should be a warning. Nor am I sure how much work it would be to validate.

[effigies]

@Lestropie I did drop b7a3ab6 because that had not gotten general review and I think it was a non-trivial change. Feel free to propose it for separate review.