On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: Matt Benson
> >
> > Weaver#weave():
> >
> > Currently there are separate methods for weaving a class vs. a
> method. I
> > think it would be sufficient and cleaner to have a class weaving met
- Original Message -
> From: Matt Benson
>
> Weaver#weave():
>
> Currently there are separate methods for weaving a class vs. a method. I
> think it would be sufficient and cleaner to have a class weaving method
> only; having provided its "interests," the Weaver can presumably
>
Hi all, and especially Mark S.--in case I've not done it publicly enough
yet, many thanks to Mark for picking up where I had left off with the
privilizer/weaver code. I think the two of us (others? :D) would like to
reach a point at which the library is usable, so I submit the following
talking po
