Michael Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:34:37AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote: > > > > Well then, that's one nay vote. :) > > > > > > Make that two. > > > > Three. But I think Michael already knew about mine and forgot to count > > it. > > Heh, I am not counting votes. That was simply me acknowledging his dislike > for the idea. I wish you guys would stop, too; you're depressing me. Well, you keep advancing this idea which has, as far as I can tell, no upside apart from the reduction in keystrokes required to instantiate an object. And in doing that you remove useful functionality from a bunch of other cases. No wonder we're down on the idea. -- Piers
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a constructor i... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a construc... Bart Lateur
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Hildo Biersma
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Damian Conway
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should cal... David E. Wheeler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should cal... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot shoul... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot shoul... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a construc... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should cal... Piers Cawley
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a cons... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should call a ... David E. Wheeler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot should cal... Michael Fowler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot shoul... David E. Wheeler
- Re: RFC 171 (v2) my Dog $spot shoul... Michael Fowler