--- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Jose Alberto Fernandez > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > "I don't want to touch this now" was talking about > the main source > tree, in no way would I want to restrict what you or > anybody else is > doing in the proposal area. > > Hope I've made myself easier to understand this time >
Yes you have. And sorry for my "blow up" :-( In any case, I still would like to get your opinion on what should be the best behaviour to deal with this issue: If I have A defined as a task, and I now try to define A as a data-type, should I: (1) redefine A (just like I would do if A was being redefined as a different task) or should I (2) fail because of trying to redefined to a different kind of thing. This is my dilema and what I would like input from you guys. (2) is much easier to implement, but (1) takes the burden from library developers on having to know the mappings of everything a priori. Thoughts? Jose Alberto Jose Alberto __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
