[cap-talk] How desirable / feasible is a persistent OCAP language?
James A. Donald
jamesd at echeque.com
Tue Jul 22 20:32:27 CDT 2008
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
More information about the cap-talk