Re: About TIP#214: Add New Object Introspection Command
- From: Uwe Klein <uwe_klein_habertwedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:03:51 +0100
Alexandre Ferrieux wrote:
Michael Schlenker wrote:There is "pincer" from <somebody>? tcl type introspection.
I think Don Porter summarized quite good why this is still in the not
voted for state. If a vote would be called it would probably be rejected.
I understand the objections for the overall concept (both 117 and 214).
What I don't understand though, is why it is clearly NO for 117 but
leaves room for hesitation for 214, while to me 214 is just 117 plus an
extra level of indirection...
What is your usecase for such functionality? Debugging? Runtime checks
for performance reasons?
I had seen it on the web but can't remember where.
uwe
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: About TIP#214: Add New Object Introspection Command
- From: Uwe Klein
- Re: About TIP#214: Add New Object Introspection Command
- References:
- About TIP#214: Add New Object Introspection Command
- From: Alexandre Ferrieux
- Re: About TIP#214: Add New Object Introspection Command
- From: Michael Schlenker
- Re: About TIP#214: Add New Object Introspection Command
- From: Alexandre Ferrieux
- About TIP#214: Add New Object Introspection Command
- Prev by Date: Re: Unable to get multiple Set-Cookie definitions in headers
- Next by Date: Re: Portrait and Landscape images and EPS to PDF conversion
- Previous by thread: Re: About TIP#214: Add New Object Introspection Command
- Next by thread: Re: About TIP#214: Add New Object Introspection Command
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|