Re: [RFC] Dynamic binding design, part I: Interface

2006-01-09 Thread Bob Rogers
From: Steve Gunnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:45:24 +0800 On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 11:05 -0500, Bob Rogers wrote: >From: Steve Gunnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 15:02:37 +0800 > >. . . > >It also seems to me that with

Re: [RFC] Dynamic binding design, part I: Interface

2006-01-09 Thread Steve Gunnell
On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 11:05 -0500, Bob Rogers wrote: >From: Steve Gunnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 15:02:37 +0800 > >Hi, > >I'm sitting here thinking about cross language calls and what I don't >see anywhere is a prohibition that stops a context from popping

Re: [RFC] Dynamic binding design, part I: Interface

2006-01-08 Thread Bob Rogers
From: Steve Gunnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 15:02:37 +0800 Hi, I'm sitting here thinking about cross language calls and what I don't see anywhere is a prohibition that stops a context from popping a handler or action or whatever that it didn't place there.

Re: [RFC] Dynamic binding design, part I: Interface

2006-01-08 Thread Steve Gunnell
Hi, I'm sitting here thinking about cross language calls and what I don't see anywhere is a prohibition that stops a context from popping a handler or action or whatever that it didn't place there. Is there an intent to prohibit or restrict this kind of behaviour? It also seems to me that with c