Re: Relying more on Mousse

# from Michael Ludwig
# on Saturday 26 November 2011 11:34:

>I don't understand the concern for unauthorised use. How would
>it be different from relying on any other implementation detail?
>In spirit, it's like relying on internal JDK classes.

Java users don't complain loudly enough to be awarded squatters rights?

I think "Not for consumption.  You have been warned." says it all.  
Maintainers need show no mercy if they can point to that statement.

I would still like to see something like a mouseless deployment with all 
of the roles and accessors pre-flattened somehow.  But of course, you 
may need the use() statements if only setup the metaclasses for use by 
extensions -- depending on how you go about the flattening.  Maybe the 
pre-cooked stuff could be in the TB2/TinyRodent.pm file?

--Eric
-- 
"Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse."
--Murphy's Corollary
---------------------------------------------------
    http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------