On Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:09:58 AM UTC-4, cjrh wrote: > > On Mar 29, 1:02 pm, Anthony <abas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2011 2:09:09 AM UTC-4, cjrh wrote: > > > > > On Mar 28, 10:03 pm, Anthony <aba...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Of course, we could always offer both options via > > > > some additional "override" argument. > > > > > Turtles all the way down? > > > > Sorry, not sure what you mean. > > Option for an option, for an option, for an option...
Good thing you stopped me before I submitted my suggestion for an "override_override" argument. :)
