On Jun 24, 8:01 am, "Pit Capitain" <pit.capit... / gmail.com> wrote:
> 2007/6/24, Trans <transf... / gmail.com>:
>
> > Pit Smack Down! You go and solve the Double Inclusion Problem just
> > like that!?
>
> > There must be a large issue. Why wouldn't Matz have already pursued
> > this? Granted, I see a little inefficiency, but nothing an Observer
> > pattern couldn't mitigate. What say you?
>
> > I'm Speechless.
>
> Tom, thanks for the kind words, but it's really not so hard to find
> just one solution to this problem. I can't speak for Matz, but I think
> he's looking for a more efficient solution that doesn't require a lot
> of bookkeeping.

Okay, I'm being a bit hyperbolic. But you deserve it anyway. I was
surprised to see a solution thrown up in a few lines of code. The
impression I had developed over previous discourse was such a thing
was not readily possible. Of course, now it seems obvious. I knew we
could just re-include the module, I just never put two and two
together.

T.