On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 05/18/2012 10:30 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>
>> On 05/18/2012 12:57 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the main things we'd be looking for would be:
>>> - a clear explanation of why a new metaclass is considered too com
On 05/18/2012 10:30 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/18/2012 12:57 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I think the main things we'd be looking for would be:
- a clear explanation of why a new metaclass is considered too complex a
solution
- what the implications are for classes that have nothing to do
