On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 07:56:43AM -0500, Stephen Compall wrote: > Okay, here are three field topologies (mixins have branches to right to > their fields, vertical link means part of same `view' object, NATO PA as > field name symbols). Which sierra should win in each?
Always both. IIRC the FOF algorithm I implemented would also take mixin parentage into account; along with the slot-name-clash-control (which is still not in) this enables us to have view fields with the same name across mixins. Does that answer your question? > The other alternative is to allow all sierras to be included, which is > slot-name-clash-control. But should that go before 0.8.3? Oh, now I see you know that yourself. Better to read the whole mail next time before writing the reply. Well then, let's postpone the issue after 0.8.3 (I suppose it won't hurt people that much). Leslie --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
