Ian Eslick <[email protected]> writes: > 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... :)
You mean you run into package problems? I thought this was supposed to be append, not a keyword (at least that's what my book says). --J. > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
