"Leslie P. Polzer" <[email protected]> writes: > On Feb 23, 11:45 pm, Jan Rychter <[email protected]> wrote: >> Leslie, you restated the problem well. But, as I wrote before, even >> though I am not entirely happy with get/set-children-of-type, I am not >> in favor of playing with method combinations in this case and I know of >> no other solutions. So, being the practical type, I just use what I >> wrote and it works for me. > > I'm going to start working on it (not necessarily the append protocol > yet) and keep you all up to date.
Hmm. I would like to get some pointers from weblocks maintainers as to whether navigation-rewrite is going to get merged or not. I have to sync with recent weblocks-dev -- I've been postponing that (It has been over a month since I finished working on navigation-rewrite) thinking that my navigation-rewrite branch would get merged. Is there agreement on navigation-rewrite EXCEPT set/get-children-of-type? If so, then perhaps you can start your work basing it on navigation-rewrite? At least you would have the places that need changing clearly tagged. I believe a working solution is better than no solution, so I would suggest we merge and then improve on it. It's "-dev" after all, remember? If the navigation-rewrite branch is to hang there indefinitely, I'll have to go on working and my fork will diverge significantly. --J. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
