From: Alexandre Oliva (oliva@dcc.unicamp.br)
Date: Sun Dec 13 1998 - 15:22:31 EST
On Dec 13, 1998, Alexandre Oliva <oliva@dcc.unicamp.br> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 1998, Godmar Back <gback@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>> Couldn't you just stick with your original idea for which you've
>> already been credited in the makefile as a clever solution?
> If finalize0 is given package access, to avoid the creation of the
> accessor method and its additional invocation, that would be fine by
> me. But I'd really prefer to avoid the two invocations, i.e., running
> finelize0 directly.
Rethinking this issue with a fresh mind, I think I'm just being
stubborn trying not to waste the effort I had put on this in the last
two days.
Let's stick with the current implementation, which is simple and
correct (despite the acessor method with package access), and stop
arguing about this trivial issue.
Please forgive me for these moments of insanity :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva aoliva@{acm.org}
oliva@{dcc.unicamp.br,gnu.org,egcs.cygnus.com,samba.org}
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, SP, Brasil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:57:14 EDT