On Dec 3, 2009, at 1:54 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> My $.02 is here:
>
> http://www.plope.com/Members/chrism/zca_thoughts_summary
I was going to comment on your blog, even though it was separate from the
mailing list, but then I couldn't register an account, so here I am.
I agree with a dece
Hey,
Thanks for doing this summary!
Gary Poster wrote:
[snip]
> == Utilities available from interfaces ==
>
> As far as I can tell, no one is against this generally, and several
> people are for it. Some people are against the syntax that has been
> proposed for this that merges utilties and
My $.02 is here:
http://www.plope.com/Members/chrism/zca_thoughts_summary
Gary Poster wrote:
> ...from my perspective.
>
> = Things vaguely approaching consensus =
>
> == General ==
>
> There's a consensus that changes to the ZCA need to be backwards compatible.
> The practical definition of
...from my perspective.
= Things vaguely approaching consensus =
== General ==
There's a consensus that changes to the ZCA need to be backwards compatible.
The practical definition of that varies for different people.
== Syntactic ==
=== Tuple multi-adaptation ===
Example:
IFoo((bar, baz))
