At 13:47 09-04-2002 -0400, Brian Lloyd wrote: >...I sent out a note a while ago now trying to scare up >some ideas on how to vet the current list of 2.6 proposals >and get to a final "plan". I didn't get much (any?) response :( >
>But there are still a lot of things on the proposed features >that are undone, and some that are controversial enough that >we need to get to closure on them. > >Committed - Y/N whether the volunteers have committed to have > the implementation and docs done by the first week >Vetted - Y / N whether the community and / or the relevant BDFLs > have come to some agreement on whether it *should* be > done. The list of items without a 'Y' will be our next Hi: Both me and Myroslav Opyr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> are quite commited to do the proposed "Object Links/References". Although from the emails we exchanged with you, I would've guessed that it was one of the "controversial enough" to be a Vetted item :-) Anyways I'm commited to do it. I do agree with your argument about link semantics but, at least for me, a link/reference is a link, and the semantics are perfectly defined i.e its not a RedirectObject. As in Unix, a hard link has different semantics from a soft link. I'm thinking of the "hard link" semantics. C U! -- Mario Valente _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )