On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Etienne Kneuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello, > > the forward_static_call looks like a decent non-intrusive solution, > and your patch looks > good from what I can tell! I guess you should commit it so it can be > documented and all. If by 'you' you mean me...I can't. I don't have any cvs karma, or an account for that matter. I am going to go ahead and write the tests and add them to a new copy of the patch. Then it will be ready for someone to commit. To answer Stanislav's question yes, the forward_static_call patch will suffice my concerns with the current implementation. You did mention that you weren't a big fan of the name, I am not particularly attached to it either. If you (or anyone else) has better name in mind I would be happy to change it.
