Re: static virtual is a keyhole?

>I believe I grasped that concept exactly that way.   It is a problem. One
>problem. We run into manifestations which can take several forms, but
>digging to the roots there is a singular motive behind.   And it is not
>about numbers or element count.
>
>It is, as I would put it:  _introducing an artificial constraint where no
>constraint is needed_. 

They keyhole problem (TKP) is a special case of a more general problem,
that of imposing unnecessary constraints.  In the chapter "Generalizing
keyholes," of my book (not yet written), I plan to discuss this
relationship.  Certainly I could attack the more general problem directly,
but I don't think that that would be helpful to practitioners.  I don't
want to try to dicate to people which features they should provide in their
programs or how they should be provided.  (Well, actually, I do, but I
don't think I could prevail.)  Yet missing features are certainly under the
perview of "no artificial constraints."  I want to address a more specific
subset of the problem, an important special case of what you want me to
address.  Fundamentally, we are in violent agreement, except you want me to
expand the definition of the Keyhole Problem to encompass all arbitrary
constraints, and I want to limit its scope to a specific subset of those
constraints.  What you want me to address is The Constraint Problem, but
that's a battle I don't want to fight, because I don't think there is any
chance I can win.  You'd be amazed at the opposition I get when I float the
idea -- trivially implementable -- that web page content should take into
account the size of the viewer's window.  If I want to change people's
behavior (and I do), I have to address a problem where I think it is
possible to make a convincing argument.  TKP qualifies, IMO.  TCP does
not. 

Scott