From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ziemowit Laski To: Per Bothner Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Target-specific Front-Ends? (Was: front end changes for Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <0ACAC2BD-E448-11D5-BA0B-0030658361CA@apple.com> References: <3C054ABC.6000207@bothner.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg01510.html Message-ID: <20011128133600.GRODQj-96UCnUSi5NPcBhujNdMgE75xR_71dWe2QoCU@z> On Wednesday, November 28, 2001, at 12:36 , Per Bothner wrote: > In any case I don't think either the SC or the experienced > maintainers can make much of a statement "specifying the > technical parameters of an acceptable solution", nor can we > make any "guarantee that if a solution meeting those criteria By "technical parameters" I meant _requirements_ that would be arrived at through iterative discussion on this list. Since we're talking about a compiler, requirements would naturally be technical in nature. > is created, it will be accepted". Sorry. Instead, you will > have to make a proposal on this mailing list, and achieve a > more-or-less consensus that what you're proposing is In that case, include me out. :) > > No more Pascal string work from me. :) :) > > My take on that was that Apple gave up just a little too > easily on that, and that we were close to accepting the > \p extension. At least I was leaning in favor of it. Phrases like "close to accepting" or "leaning in favor" (or, just now, "more-or-less consensus") are too vague for me to rely on when devoting my time (and my employer's money!) to a project. What I was looking for was a monosyllabic "yes" or "no," which I never got. --Zem -------------------------------------------------------------- Ziemowit Laski Apple Computer, Inc. zlaski@apple.com 2 Infinite Loop, MS 302-4SN +1.408.974.6229 Fax .1344 Cupertino, CA 95014-2085