From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gsl-discuss-return-5519-listarch-gsl-discuss=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 10758 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2009 15:13:35 -0000
Received: (qmail 10750 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Sep 2009 15:13:35 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0
	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.network-theory.co.uk (HELO mail.network-theory.co.uk) (66.199.228.187)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:13:31 +0000
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:13:00 -0000
Message-ID: <m3r5u0wero.wl%bjg@network-theory.co.uk>
From: Brian Gough <bjg@gnu.org>
To: Rhys Ulerich <rhys.ulerich@gmail.com>
Cc: gsl-discuss@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: GSL 2.0 roadmap (one man's view)
In-Reply-To: <4a00655d0909200830j76902792pf5a9698611743f32@mail.gmail.com>
References: <48E25CA9.6080306@iki.fi>
	<m3ljp7amw3.wl%bjg@network-theory.co.uk>
	<4A7ADFDC.9080408@iki.fi>
	<m3r5v4527i.wl%bjg@network-theory.co.uk>
	<1251414774.23092.80.camel@manticore.lanl.gov>
	<1251414939.23092.82.camel@manticore.lanl.gov>
	<m3d462q2lz.wl%bjg@network-theory.co.uk>
	<1253062087.23092.965.camel@manticore.lanl.gov>
	<4AB5F77F.8020104@iki.fi>
	<alpine.LFD.2.00.0909200907570.8848@lilith>
	<4a00655d0909200830j76902792pf5a9698611743f32@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/22.2 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Message-Mac: 47de304695f26df703a9993acd524f40
Mailing-List: contact gsl-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gsl-discuss.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gsl-discuss-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gsl-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:gsl-discuss@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gsl-discuss-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gsl-discuss-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-q3/txt/msg00064.txt.bz2

At Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:30:39 -0500,
Rhys Ulerich wrote:
> I think those that want (b) should have a view that accomplishes it,
> but that people using (a) only shouldn't pay for the overhead. 

Yes, it would be reasonable to have a generalised view built on top of
the existing objects like this.