On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > This allows to bypass the target override, and thus bypass >> > whatever the overridden target does. >> >> Right. But I already can bypass it if the target is >> overridden since I get the aliased name then. If this type >> of bypassing is wrong, we shouldn't allow it in any way. >> > > This is one of my pifs with the current import, a battle I think I > lost. Or maybe I won (I cannot remember which side I was :-( )
I remember the discussion and I remember I dropped out of it since I thought target overrides were entirely bad back then. Yes, I've changed my mind in the meantime. Maybe <import> would have been better without the current target name mangling, but for now we have to stick with it. > Here what we needed was having "super" (or in our case since we have > multiple inheritance) to be able to refer to several supers. This probably is what NAME.target was supposed to provide, the thing we failed to achieve was limiting access. Since we failed to limit it properly this thread is asking for opening it in a consistent manner instead of the twisted way we currently have. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
