[cap-talk] How desirable / feasible is a persistent OCAP language?

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 10:34 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
> There is a "consensus" that capability objects need to
> be capable of persistence, not a consensus in the sense
> that everyone agrees, or that such a position is
> uncontroversial, but merely in sense that disagreement
> is treated as a transgression.

James: this is an ad hominem attack. Either substantiate the assertion
with examples or retract it.