Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Why the lack of mixing-in support for Class methods?"
>     on Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:53:32 +0900, transfire / gmail.com writes:
>
> |> It seems Daniel's _API_ is good enough.  What's wrong with the idea?
> |> Except for implementation issues, of course.
> |
> |Well, that's what I've been using already. In fact, as far as I can
> |tell the Facets' implementation is the most complete around (not to say
> |it can't be improved). But even so, it is hackish, inefficient, and
> |fragile, and that really can;t be hellped because of the naturr of
> |implementing it. And its' made worse in that the techinque is without
> |standard, so nayone can run roughshod right over it. These are the
> |reasons why I've asked you directly about the issue. I'm essentially at
> |my wits end with it. I've spent more hours on this one problem than I
> |care to admit.
>
> You got me wrong again.  I asked you what if I'd add Daniel's API to
> the core.

Ah yea, sorry for rambling. As I said, I already use that API, so, yea,
that works. I just don't know the best solution and have been throwing
out ideas. I was hoping maybe you could tell us.

So if you did this, would #include handle the extending? Or would
another method need to be used?

T.