On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:45 AM, J. McConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks. I think it does a bit too much - I only want to relax the
>> requirement for namespace-qualification, not any of the other
>> assertions
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks. I think it does a bit too much - I only want to relax the
> requirement for namespace-qualification, not any of the other
> assertions (e.g. that the participants are either Named or Classes,
> can't be = etc).
Righ
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 9:21 AM, J. McConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 7, 9:01 am, Mibu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Is it possible to remove the asserts in derive that restrict the
>>> parent and child to nam
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 7, 9:01 am, Mibu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is it possible to remove the asserts in derive that restrict the
>> parent and child to namespace-qualified names?
>>
>> It would be much more useful if the asserts are m
On Dec 7, 9:01 am, Mibu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it possible to remove the asserts in derive that restrict the
> parent and child to namespace-qualified names?
>
> It would be much more useful if the asserts are moved to the global-
> hierarchy case ([child parent]) and the "private" hier
Is it possible to remove the asserts in derive that restrict the
parent and child to namespace-qualified names?
It would be much more useful if the asserts are moved to the global-
hierarchy case ([child parent]) and the "private" hierarchies ([h
child parent]) can do as they wish. Maybe ditch th
