On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 07:17:20PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > ==
> > Either way I'm not sure it solves the problem; if each module asserts
> > that *they* are the smarter one then you either wind up with the same
> > situation you
> ==
> Either way I'm not sure it solves the problem; if each module asserts
> that *they* are the smarter one then you either wind up with the same
> situation you have now or even worse contention.
>
==
What if both modules have this :override bit set at the same time?
Does the second one still win? Or does the first one win again?
==
It is wise to live the behaviour
> This RFC proposes a support of a situation when a more-knowledgable module may
> steal overloading from a less-knowledgable module or visa versa;
What if both modules have this :override bit set at the same time? Does
the second one still win? Or does the first one win again?
Either way I'm no
