On Feb 9, 2007, at 9:49 AM, John Siracusa wrote:
> This is a fine idea, but I think the correct approach is to make a new
> Manager class that uses the existing Manager class internally. That's
> a lot cleaner than trying to further augment the existing Manager.
This was ridiculously easy to im
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 23:16:24 -0500 Jonathan Vanasco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
JV> I've been doing a lot of repetitive operations on the results from
JV> manager functions lately.
JV> Today I think I realized a functionality that might make sense -- if
JV> the results returned by a manager ca
On 2/8/07, Jonathan Vanasco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Today I think I realized a functionality that might make sense -- if
> the results returned by a manager call weren't simply an array, but a
> class object.
>
> It would behave just as an array - there would be no real difference
> in current
I've been doing a lot of repetitive operations on the results from
manager functions lately.
Today I think I realized a functionality that might make sense -- if
the results returned by a manager call weren't simply an array, but a
class object.
It would behave just as an array - there wou
