Re: ActiveNodeSet/StaticNodeSet alternative

> I think you missed the point of ActiveNodeSet and StaticNodeSet.  It is
> not so that the application writer can decide which one he thinks would be
> quicker, but rather so that he can decide which one he can deal with,
> since it was clear from several sources that each is a use case.

Why not?  It's easy enough to define a base interface so that the
sharable operations can be shared.  Not all users expect to be
mutating the tree; why pessimize those other use cases?

Sounds like what's been achieved is "must decide" (early),
not "can decide" (later, if it's important).

- Dave