On 02/01/2009, at 8:15 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
If you could point me to an explanation of why changing this is bad,
I'd love to catch up on the discussion. I assume it's a technical
reason?
No. The primary reason is "why change - the current mechanism has
worked for a year". Damien (project lead) doesn't regard change as
necessary, and a significant change to support top-level reflexivity
(which is your primary thrust) doesn't have support from the other
gatekeepers. There is some support for name identity, although I
suspect not enough to prompt a change.
Antony Blakey
-------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies.
-- C. A. R. Hoare
