The Ghost Of J2 Labs

Ohhh, hmm... that's an interesting idea. We should do that too, but only let the abstract type do it. What a neat idea. On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:05...

HA. Yes. It's been a while, so I forgot. :) On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Steven Cummings [email protected]: > Wait, wasn't it your idea from the original...

> Okay, so to land on the decision for now: > - We want abstract type to truly be pass for now (this means it will > likely be little...

Ah ok. That works for me. On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Steven Cummings [email protected]: > I wonder if a better fix is to call the BaseType an...

> Do we actually need Model to implement the entire mapping interface? If > not, these methods could just as well be named _keys, _items, and so on. > >...

Btw, Kalle - you're doing a goddam great job with all your Schematics work. I have only been speaking up when I have something different from you to say, which...

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Kalle Tuure [email protected] wrote: > the purpose of objects implementing the mapping interface is so people can > write functions that work...

I decided to look into the idea of putting Schematics in a loop more closely and whipped up a small test. The results appear to suggest that classes are still...

I pasted that code into the interpreter. I added a comment without the output if I run the test code as a script instead. On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at...

I see now that your PR is not currently part of the development branch. I have tried that too, and in my simple test, the results appear to actually be...