Hi --

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Christoph wrote:

> Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> ...
> > That would be interesting alternative idea.  I think it's 
> > matter of how much compatibility we would preserve.
> 
> That is obviously your call to make. Personally I sort of prefer
> Tom's solution (it is David's second choice if I remember
> correctly).  

Tied for second with doing nothing :-)

> However if we would go that route I definitely would throw
> out singleton class localness (that puts me somewhere 
> between Tom and David:-) since having to write (non singleton)
> accessors to manipulate instance variables defined in the
> (non singleton) super-class (or in the case of special case of
   ^^^

Is this second 'non' perhaps not supposed to be there?  If it *is*
supposed to be there, then can you give a couple of examples to
clarify what you mean? :-)

> meta classes the "meta super class") is fairly unappealing to
> me.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack / wobblini.net