"Joaquín Mª López Muñoz" wrotes "vicente.botet" ha escrito: [snip]
In addition, I'd replace static_holder by intramodule_holder. intramodule_holder reflects much more the accessibility intent for the users, static_holder talks more about the implementation.
Do you mean that intermodule_holder should be the default rather than static_holder? There are reasons not to do that, as I explained to John Reid at:
Non, this was only a renaming sugestion. NOT INTERmodule_holder BUT INTRAmodule_holder. I'd RENAME static_holder by intramodule_holder. intramodule_holder reflects much more the accessibility intent for the users, static_holder talks more about the implementation. So at the end there will be two holders: . intramodule_holder (renaming of static_holder) and . intermodule_holder Regards --------------------------- Vicente Juan Botet Escriba