Re: indefinite extent of call-next-method

[Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM]

For what its worth (which I hope isn't much), I've found the arguments
for indefinite convincing enough that I'm happy to change my vote from
"dynamic" to "indefinite".

My concern was that dynamic extent might not be implementable in some
situations, and I think I've seen how it is.

Part of my motivation for changing my vote is that I believe
categorically that  "optional extensions" should be strongly discouraged
whenever possible, and, when present out of necessity, detectable by
well-known *features*, and their use lexically determinable.