I'm fine with the type parameter approach so long as it is effective. By effective I mean: Will existing implementations actually take the time to update their behavior to properly handle the optional type parameter.
- James Bob Wyman wrote: >[snip] > James suggests: "the type parameter is [a] potentially more elegant > solution." Elegance is goodness. Let's insist on elegant solutions in > the absence of compelling reasons to be inelegant. > > bob wyman
