On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, a long time ago I went on proposing something like this, to > have a real stack of property definitions, shadowing, and so on. But > there are a lot of funny issues that made it very dificult and a lot > of compatibility things. I see where you are coming from. And since your approach also covers the world of references and prefixes and whatever, it already shows where a "simple" let container comes up short. Uhm, I realize that I'm not helping anybody by agreeing and disagreeing with you and Peter and even my past self back and forth. To me <let> is the correct solution that may need to get extended to cover additional cases. Your task that generates unique names has merits of its own and independent of that. Your (much simpler) approach would need an additional cleanup mode to get rid of my concerns and you are already willing to provide that. Should we follow both routes - maybe on different time scales and branches? Will it be too confusing for our users to offer two solutions to the same problem? Are we happy with a <cleanup> task that can unset properties (and thus subvert immutability)? Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
