seen the "does b". You could assert the other way around:
class c { does a for <<bar baz>>; does b for <<foo biz>>; }
which is kind of nifty looking, but some may blanch at the dual meaning for "for"....
Funny how similar that is to
class c { does a handles <<bar baz>>; does b handles <<foo biz>>; }
-- Brent "Dax" Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Perl and Parrot hacker
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
