* ash (a...@commandprompt.com) wrote: > OK, forget functions, I now realize it's not feasible to consider.
I never meant to imply that it was but rather to point out that we might
have users who actually want to get an error when they're changing a
type definition which goes beyond the scope of the explicit action (and
therefore could very well have more side-effects than they realize),
rather than just doing it for them.
> Can we get back to re-defining views at least?
I'm still not convinced you'll be able to do it in a sensible and
reliable way, but you're certainly welcome to continue exploring.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
