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

[James A. Donald]

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.

I notice that no one responded to this as a
transgression, which would seem to be evidence against
my assertion.