On 05/03/2012 11:06, AntC wrote:
Gershom Bazermangershombat gmail.com writes:
... If everyone finds this agreeable (and I can
imagine no reason they wouldn't!) ...
That's a misleading remark: you're asking people to agree to a half-baked and
sketchy proposal.
I wonder if we
+1
On Mar 6, 2012 11:24 AM, Simon Marlow marlo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/03/2012 11:06, AntC wrote:
Gershom Bazermangershombat gmail.com writes:
... If everyone finds this agreeable (and I can
imagine no reason they wouldn't!) ...
That's a misleading remark: you're asking
Gershom Bazerman gershomb at gmail.com writes:
Gershom, an implementation question for your proposed approach to
representation-hiding:
(It's always easy to wave away awkwardness if you don't show the full
mechanism. Please write up your proposal on the wiki to the same level of
detail as
On 3/5/12 12:03 AM, Gershom Bazerman wrote:
So, suppose we have a locally declared fields solution (such as DORF).
Now, where do these fields live? Arguably, we want a module per record.
Rather, part of the point of all this is precisely that we *don't* want
one module per record. That's the
The discussion on records has in some ways narrowed (which is good), but
within that narrowed scope of disagreement become very contentious on
global vs. local default scope for field names. Those in favor of
information-hiding as a key feature have been pretty vocal so far, and
while others
