On Wednesday 01 December 2004 11:21, Valdis.Kletnieks@private wrote: ... > I'm not sure how I feel about that particular conflict resolution - we'd > have to be more specific about the calling order - would we: > > a) Call capable() first, and if it fails, then run the restrictive chain > b) Call capable() first, and if it succeeds, run the restrictive chain > c) call Capable(), run the chain, and return (capable || chain) > d) Run the restrictive chain, and if it fails, call capable() as a last > resort e) Run the restrictive chain, and if it succeeds, call capable() > f) Run both, and return (chain || capable) Did you mean: f) run both, and return (chain && capable)? since otherwise, (f) and (c) would appear equivalent.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Dec 02 2004 - 12:30:53 PST