On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Thus the only viable solutions are: > > Solution (a) > functors in [lang] > [collections] depends on [lang] > > Solution (b) > functors in [functor] > [collections] depends on [functor] > > Solution (c) > functors in [collections] > > Any more views. Is [functor] viable?? [functor] seems fine. The charter definitely pushes us towards small components, and this is a viable way of managing a library [with its own set of obvious negatives]. I'm all for the functor package as is in Lang being promoted to Functor [yeah, were back to patterns but with a better PROPOSAL]. Does it matter if [functor] and [lang] have circular dependencies? Not that they will. Hen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
