On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Tim Kroeger wrote:
> Just an idea from me: What about the other way around: You use a
> set that specifies all the subdomains on which the variable is
> *not* added. Then, an empty set naturally corresponds to adding the variable
> everywhere.
I thought about this, but
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Roy Stogner wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Tim Kroeger wrote:
>
>> Just an idea from me: What about the other way around: You use a
>> set that specifies all the subdomains on which the variable is
>> *not* added. Then, an empty set naturally corresponds to adding the
>> va
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Tim Kroeger wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Roy Stogner wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Tim Kroeger wrote:
>>
>>> Just an idea from me: What about the other way around: You use a
>>> set that specifies all the subdomains on which the variable
>>> is *not* added. Then, an e
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Roy Stogner wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Tim Kroeger wrote:
>
>> Well, that's a good point. What about using a pointer to std
>> then a let a NULL pointer mean "all subdomains"? I (as a user) would
>> prefer this because it does not re-define the meaning of something that
>> It's up to Ben (don't look a gift horse in the code he's writing for
>> you, or something like that), but to me this sounds like the best idea
>> so far.
>
> Well, I'm not looking a gift horse in anything for this situation
> because I won't be using this functionality in the near future. I wa
