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 


  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]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to