On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
> so #2 seems like the lowest common
> denominator (it would permanently preclude #3 and would require #4 to
> introduce two new functions instead of just one). #1 of course would
> bolt on to #2.
oops, got #1 and #2 backwards there.
merlin