On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Marco Martin <notm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:37 PM, David Edmundson > <da...@davidedmundson.co.uk> wrote: > >> perhaps you are right, semantically they are two things, not sure what > >> could be used instead more "proper"(suggestions welcome), will think > >> more about it. > > > > > > Long term, a virtual hook for immutability? > > but even adding a new virtual isn't bc as far i know? > Sort of. Actually adding a virtual is, but the design pattern of a virtual is do-able in multiple other ways which are binary compatiable. *if* that's the approach we want (and it's my preferred option) I'll make a RR that does it. David
