On Nov 16, 2007, at 4:34 , Matthew Fulmer wrote:
I am curious about the reasons for this restriction. Is it because
of the
way Monticello relies on method category names?
For the most part, this is the reason for the restriction. I
would consider it a bug.
More like a missing feature,
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 08:36:22AM -0600, itsme213 wrote:
Matthew Fulmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
What are you trying to do, exactly?
Currently just experimenting to decide some architectural choices, one of
which would define some of my classes in an aspect-oriented style:
Matthew Fulmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
What are you trying to do, exactly?
Currently just experimenting to decide some architectural choices, one of
which would define some of my classes in an aspect-oriented style: different
aspects of overlapping classes -- including i-vars --
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 09:08:02AM -0700, Matthew Fulmer wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 08:36:22AM -0600, itsme213 wrote:
Traits might solve some of this, but I don't think I want to be that much
on
the bleeding edge ...
Traits don't seem to me to be related to the security example
