According to Paul Rohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I'm curious. If it's "just" a bunch of cut-and-paste code, why would we
> need to break the tree to get it refactored? In theory, it should be safe
> to replace the N duplicate references with the relevant XP call, no?
>
Just because in those cut & paste code, the only difference comes
from platform object instantiation. For this we need to provide a static
constructor for the xp class that is implemented by the platform class.
So until the platform maintainer implements it, the link will fail.
Hub
