> From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > > >You could also have an add(Condition) method and > >that would allow your "no nesting required" notation without > having to > >extend ConditionBase. > > > > > > > This depends on getting the built-in conditions implemented > as types, which in turn depends on getting the "role" code in > to deal with the "or" and > "and"s > conditions/selectors.
Is this still a problem even when the class contains only add(Condition) and does not contain an add(Selector) ? In other words, can we start using them in the simple cases. Why aren't all the conditions being types? Is there a technical issue or just lack of time to do it. Sorry I pestered, but I sometimes get lost on the issues. Jose Alberto --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
