Speaking of append, can we change append to :append for the dependencies protocol? At least as of my fork this hadn't been done and it drives me nuts. Not really taht important, of course... :)
Ian On Feb 19, 2009, at 6:54 AM, Leslie P. Polzer wrote: > > On Feb 16, 11:46 pm, Vyacheslav Akhmechet <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Also, an append method combination fixes the ordering, which in my >>> case >>> is a no-no. >> >> Ok. I think this is easy to fix, though. > > How would you solve this in general? You're probably thinking of > an :AROUND method that refers to another protocol to figure out > the correct final ordering? > > It seems complicated to me, but I still would like to keep the APPEND > mc > idea, so let's discuss it. > > Both you and Stephen (in a slightly different but essentially similar > way) > have proposed this, and it looks like a good thing at first sight. > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
