Thank you for your contribution, Patrick.
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> The only issue this causes is
> maybe needing to state me.<blah> or local.<blah> as a means to saying,
> "Yes, I **really** did intend to use the local one, so don't warn me."
>
> But, that doesn't do anything different than I suggest and it means
> **extra** time is taken "every" parse, to fix conflicts. Better to
> specify a system, then provide a means to update non-compatible scenes
> to the new standard.
>

Did you actually read the most recent posting I made to this thread? (aside
from response to Bob)  What did I have to say about any changes to user
responsibilities?  I would prefer that questions and suggestions in this
thread be limited to discussion about the algorithms needed to implement
"retroactive aliasing" and the C++ code needed to make the model a reality.
 Discussing whether or not such an idea is a good one in theory is not
enough.  People need to be able to try it out - and to try out other models
- and to decide what works the best for their needs.

I would love to have some other users show up at this site with whom to
colaborate.

Please, if you share my vision, then help me to stop beginning my sentences
with the word "I", and to start beginning them with the word "we".

A couple of asides:
I want to help make a suit of clothes for us to "grow into" - not one made
of patches that are added over time.  I have a strong feeling that
"retroactive aliasing" could occur on the fly - thus, reducing parse time.

Post a reply to this message