Re: Why would anyone want opacity?

["ozan s. yigit" <oz@nexus.yorku.ca>]

> Isn't that what opacity means: there's no way within the language
> (as opposed to, say, some debugging environment) to break the
> abstraction?  There are of course many intermediate and
> compromise positions, of which Mitch Wand's is probably one.

i think i know what opacity means, and if mitch has a compromise
position, how did he end up holding the stick for the absolutist
position which of course being implemented absolutely, disallows
all the generic stuff rozas wants?

i suppose i am missing something.

oz