From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15163 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2004 04:26:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 15074 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2004 04:26:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out4.apple.com) (17.254.13.23) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Nov 2004 04:26:14 -0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAJ4Wnr8028325 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:32:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay4.apple.com (relay4.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.14) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:26:52 -0800 Received: from [17.219.204.133] (vpn2priv-133.apple.com [17.219.204.133]) by relay4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAJ4PuSw007867; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:25:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <442C1616-387F-11D9-9815-0030654C2998@hamburg.de> <3D92B030-39C3-11D9-8317-00039390FFE2@apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <1B18C7B1-39E3-11D9-B2D5-000A95BCF344@apple.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: gcc mailing list , Mike Stump , Ziemowit Laski , GNUStep , Geoffrey Keating From: Matt Austern Subject: Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0? Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 05:49:00 -0000 To: Helge Hess X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00669.txt.bz2 On Nov 18, 2004, at 5:38 PM, Helge Hess wrote: > On 19. Nov 2004, at 01:37 Uhr, Ziemowit Laski wrote: >>> Zem is asking me to design his frontend's data structures for him. I >>> don't have time to do that right now, and Zem hasn't done the design >>> work himself, so we're waiting. >> Since Geoff has objected to every design proposal I made, then >> naturally >> I was (and am) expecting a constructive alternative. > > So the situation seems to be that you have proposed designs which were > rejected by Geoff, probably because they were either considered > incomplete or unacceptable. > Obviously you can't expect an alternative from him (does he work for > you or Apple?), as he mentions he has the time to review stuff for > inclusion but not to propose designs. > > The question for me is how we can resolve the situation to get > forward. Is there any other GCC maintainer besides Geoff who has the > authority to review your proposals for inclusion and to mediate > between you two? > In case a theoretical "other" also rejects your proposals, can we find > someone who can come up constructive alternatives people can agree on? > > Or maybe Apple can consult (aka pay) Geoff to come up with a > "constructive alternative"? Apple already pays Geoff. Zem, Geoff, and I are all Apple employees. This discussion should probably happen offline. It's in Apple's interest for ObjC++ to get into mainline. It's also in Apple's interest to make sure that there aren't any changes that hurt compiler performance. It's silly for this discussion to be happening on an international email list when most of the people participating in it have offices on the same floor of the same building. --Matt