Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf]

Hi,

I wanted to ask what the current status of Objective-C++ for mainline 
gcc is. While there have been a lot of activity on the gcc-patches and 
gcc-cvs lists several month ago it is now relatively silent regarding 
this topic. Is all the work done now or did the release plan slip 
backwards (to 4.1 or whatever)?

regards, Lars

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Mike Stump]

On Nov 17, 2004, at 1:58 AM, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
> I wanted to ask what the current status of Objective-C++ for mainline 
> gcc is. While there have been a lot of activity on the gcc-patches and 
> gcc-cvs lists several month ago it is now relatively silent regarding 
> this topic. Is all the work done now or did the release plan slip 
> backwards (to 4.1 or whatever)?

Last I knew, everything was solidly wedged behind Geoff's objection 
with no plan forward.  The objection will either have to be withdrawn, 
or Geoff will have to communicate his vision before any progress can be 
made.

I think this should be resolved now, as as we push it forward, it will 
pass the drop dead date, and objective-c++ will have to be jettisoned 
from gcc 4.0.0.  :-(

Mark, I suppose we can discuss when that drop dead date is.  Has it 
already passed?

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf]

Am Mittwoch, 17.11.04 um 21:26 Uhr schrieb Mike Stump:

> On Nov 17, 2004, at 1:58 AM, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
>> I wanted to ask what the current status of Objective-C++ for mainline 
>> gcc is. While there have been a lot of activity on the gcc-patches 
>> and gcc-cvs lists several month ago it is now relatively silent 
>> regarding this topic. Is all the work done now or did the release 
>> plan slip backwards (to 4.1 or whatever)?
>
> Last I knew, everything was solidly wedged behind Geoff's objection 
> with no plan forward.  The objection will either have to be withdrawn, 
> or Geoff will have to communicate his vision before any progress can 
> be made.

What kind of objection was that? (you can give me a pointer to the 
archived mail at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/ or so)

Would it be possible to ask Geoff to get down to business?

>
> I think this should be resolved now, as as we push it forward, it will 
> pass the drop dead date, and objective-c++ will have to be jettisoned 
> from gcc 4.0.0.  :-(
>
> Mark, I suppose we can discuss when that drop dead date is.  Has it 
> already passed?

Hopefully not!

>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
>

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Ziemowit Laski]

On 17 Nov 2004, at 13.42, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:

>
> Am Mittwoch, 17.11.04 um 21:26 Uhr schrieb Mike Stump:
>
>> On Nov 17, 2004, at 1:58 AM, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
>>> I wanted to ask what the current status of Objective-C++ for 
>>> mainline gcc is. While there have been a lot of activity on the 
>>> gcc-patches and gcc-cvs lists several month ago it is now relatively 
>>> silent regarding this topic. Is all the work done now or did the 
>>> release plan slip backwards (to 4.1 or whatever)?
>>
>> Last I knew, everything was solidly wedged behind Geoff's objection 
>> with no plan forward.  The objection will either have to be 
>> withdrawn, or Geoff will have to communicate his vision before any 
>> progress can be made.
>
> What kind of objection was that? (you can give me a pointer to the 
> archived mail at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/ or so)

Lars,

The tail-end of the thread is at:

   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-10/msg00306.html

>
> Would it be possible to ask Geoff to get down to business?

I tried and failed, but you're welcome to give it a go. :-)

--Zem

--------------------------------------------------------------
Ziemowit Laski                 1 Infinite Loop, MS 301-2K
Mac OS X Compiler Group        Cupertino, CA USA  95014-2083
Apple Computer, Inc.           +1.408.974.6229  Fax .5477

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Gregory John Casamento]

Guys..   This type of outburst is atypical coming from me, but I must say
this...

Argh!!  C'mon... c'mon... c'mon...  ObjC++ has been perpetually forthcoming for
the past two years!   What does it take to get Objective-C++ in?    It has been
so frustrating waiting for this.  There is *so much software* which would be
trivial to reuse once this is done.

Please, just get past all of the politics and get it in!

GJC

--- Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf <lars.sonchocky-helldorf@hamburg.de> wrote:

> 
> Am Mittwoch, 17.11.04 um 21:26 Uhr schrieb Mike Stump:
> 
> > On Nov 17, 2004, at 1:58 AM, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
> >> I wanted to ask what the current status of Objective-C++ for mainline 
> >> gcc is. While there have been a lot of activity on the gcc-patches 
> >> and gcc-cvs lists several month ago it is now relatively silent 
> >> regarding this topic. Is all the work done now or did the release 
> >> plan slip backwards (to 4.1 or whatever)?
> >
> > Last I knew, everything was solidly wedged behind Geoff's objection 
> > with no plan forward.  The objection will either have to be withdrawn, 
> > or Geoff will have to communicate his vision before any progress can 
> > be made.
> 
> What kind of objection was that? (you can give me a pointer to the 
> archived mail at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/ or so)
> 
> Would it be possible to ask Geoff to get down to business?
> 
> >
> > I think this should be resolved now, as as we push it forward, it will 
> > pass the drop dead date, and objective-c++ will have to be jettisoned 
> > from gcc 4.0.0.  :-(
> >
> > Mark, I suppose we can discuss when that drop dead date is.  Has it 
> > already passed?
> 
> Hopefully not!
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> > Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
> 


=====
Gregory John Casamento 
-- CEO/President Open Logic Corp. (A Maryland Corporation)
#### Maintainer of Gorm for GNUstep.

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Nicolas Roard]

Le 17 nov. 04, à 22:40, Gregory John Casamento a écrit :

> Guys..   This type of outburst is atypical coming from me, but I must 
> say
> this...
>
> Argh!!  C'mon... c'mon... c'mon...  ObjC++ has been perpetually 
> forthcoming for
> the past two years!   What does it take to get Objective-C++ in?    It 
> has been
> so frustrating waiting for this.  There is *so much software* which 
> would be
> trivial to reuse once this is done.
>
> Please, just get past all of the politics and get it in!

I can only second that...

It's really frustrating. Quite a bunch of us are waiting for it, some 
even stopped developing C/C++ bridges
(or didn't start) because they expect ObjC++ for the next gcc release.

And now it seems that the problems are becoming more political than 
technical ??

please, try to reach an agreement..

-- 
Nicolas Roard
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
  -Arthur C. Clarke

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Nicolas Roard wrote:

> And now it seems that the problems are becoming more political than technical
> ??

The problems are technical.

It is for the ObjC++ maintainers to produce patches that do not adversely 
affect the memory consumption, compile time performance or maintainability 
of the C or C++ front ends.  These are technical issues.  If existing 
slots in datastructures are to be reused, then all uses of those 
datastructures in the existing front ends need analysing to make sure this 
is safe (probably with checking added to the accessors to ensure it 
remains safe).  If new slots are added, statistics of performance on real 
code are needed to show no statistically significant adverse effect.  
Similarly, if conditionals are added anywhere someone thinks might be a 
hot spot, profiling results are needed to show there is no performance 
impact.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
    jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
    joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
    jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Phil Edwards]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 02:40:33PM -0800, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
> Guys..   This type of outburst is atypical coming from me, but I must say
> this...
> 
> Argh!!  C'mon... c'mon... c'mon...  ObjC++ has been perpetually forthcoming for
> the past two years!   What does it take to get Objective-C++ in?    It has been
> so frustrating waiting for this.  There is *so much software* which would be
> trivial to reuse once this is done.
> 
> Please, just get past all of the politics and get it in!

Lots of screaming and yelling about "just do it," but nobody in the ObjC++
community so far has answered the objections brought up the last time.

Politics aren't what's keeping it out.  Front-ends aren't popularity
contests; the GCC maintainers aren't going to suddenly start checking in
troublesome code just because X number of potential users really, really
want it.  If you want it in 4.0, then start answering questions and propose
cleaner designs than the ones so far.


-- 
Behind everything some further thing is found, forever; thus the tree behind
the bird, stone beneath soil, the sun behind Urth.  Behind our efforts, let
there be found our efforts.
              - Ascian saying, as related by Loyal to the Group of Seventeen

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Alex Perez]

Phil Edwards wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 02:40:33PM -0800, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
> 
>>Guys..   This type of outburst is atypical coming from me, but I must say
>>this...
>>
>>Argh!!  C'mon... c'mon... c'mon...  ObjC++ has been perpetually forthcoming for
>>the past two years!   What does it take to get Objective-C++ in?    It has been
>>so frustrating waiting for this.  There is *so much software* which would be
>>trivial to reuse once this is done.
>>
>>Please, just get past all of the politics and get it in!
> 
> 
> Lots of screaming and yelling about "just do it," but nobody in the ObjC++
> community so far has answered the objections brought up the last time.
> 
> Politics aren't what's keeping it out.  Front-ends aren't popularity
> contests; the GCC maintainers aren't going to suddenly start checking in
> troublesome code just because X number of potential users really, really
> want it.  If you want it in 4.0, then start answering questions and propose
> cleaner designs than the ones so far.
> 
> 
maybe you could actually be specific about what the concerns are instead 
  of spreading more FUD about the front-end changes. As best *I* 
understood it, the person preventing the changes from going in was Geoff 
Keating, because he "wanted time to think about it" (nearly two months 
ago, mind you)...if this is a false impression on my part, please, 
SPECIFICALLY, address the issues which are preventing it from getting 
into GCC, so someone can actually do something about it.

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Joe Buck]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 03:47:06PM -0800, Alex Perez wrote:
> maybe you could actually be specific about what the concerns are instead 
>   of spreading more FUD about the front-end changes.

See Joseph Myers' article on this thread.

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Gregory John Casamento]

See below...

--- Phil Edwards <phil@codesourcery.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 02:40:33PM -0800, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
> > Guys..   This type of outburst is atypical coming from me, but I must say
> > this...
> > 
> > Argh!!  C'mon... c'mon... c'mon...  ObjC++ has been perpetually forthcoming
> for
> > the past two years!   What does it take to get Objective-C++ in?    It has
> been
> > so frustrating waiting for this.  There is *so much software* which would
> be
> > trivial to reuse once this is done.
> > 
> > Please, just get past all of the politics and get it in!
> 
> Lots of screaming and yelling about "just do it," but nobody in the ObjC++
> community so far has answered the objections brought up the last time.
> 
> Politics aren't what's keeping it out.  Front-ends aren't popularity
> contests; the GCC maintainers aren't going to suddenly start checking in
> troublesome code just because X number of potential users really, really
> want it.  If you want it in 4.0, then start answering questions and propose
> cleaner designs than the ones so far.
> 

Given that it works in Apple's version of GCC since about 2.7.2.1 (the oldest
version of the compiler I've got on my old NeXT machine) and in the current gcc
3.3.x on my Mac, tells me that there's a way to get this done.   And, Yes, I'm
aware of the differences between the NeXT and GNU runtimes.

I realized that "Front-ends aren't popularity contests" but that doesn't change
the face that Geoffrey Keating said he would "need to think about it" nearly
two months ago now with absolutely no visible progress since.   

Please understand that the lack of ObjC++ support is a *SERIOUS* impedement to
the GNUstep project as without ObjC++ we can only interface with C++ based
libraries by building a C bridge.   It also stops us from porting many apps and
frameworks which would be trivial if ObjC++ was present.  ObjC++ has been
"forthcoming" for the past two years and to see it sidelined yet again is, to
say the least, extremely frustrating because it only means that MORE will
change in the gcc baseline making it more difficult to merge from the
objectivec-improvements branch in the future.

If I had the time, I would help with this, but I am already on three free
software projects as it is.

Later, GJC

=====
Gregory John Casamento 
-- CEO/President Open Logic Corp. (A Maryland Corporation)
#### Maintainer of Gorm for GNUstep.

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Gregory John Casamento]

See below...

--- Phil Edwards <phil@codesourcery.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 02:40:33PM -0800, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
> > Guys..   This type of outburst is atypical coming from me, but I must say
> > this...
> > 
> > Argh!!  C'mon... c'mon... c'mon...  ObjC++ has been perpetually forthcoming
> for
> > the past two years!   What does it take to get Objective-C++ in?    It has
> been
> > so frustrating waiting for this.  There is *so much software* which would
> be
> > trivial to reuse once this is done.
> > 
> > Please, just get past all of the politics and get it in!
> 
> Lots of screaming and yelling about "just do it," but nobody in the ObjC++
> community so far has answered the objections brought up the last time.
> 
> Politics aren't what's keeping it out.  Front-ends aren't popularity
> contests; the GCC maintainers aren't going to suddenly start checking in
> troublesome code just because X number of potential users really, really
> want it.  If you want it in 4.0, then start answering questions and propose
> cleaner designs than the ones so far.
> 

Given that it works in Apple's version of GCC since about 2.7.2.1 (the oldest
version of the compiler I've got on my old NeXT machine) and in the current gcc
3.3.x on my Mac, tells me that there's a way to get this done.   And, Yes, I'm
aware of the differences between the NeXT and GNU runtimes.

I realized that "Front-ends aren't popularity contests" but that doesn't change
the face that Geoffrey Keating said he would "need to think about it" nearly
two months ago now with absolutely no visible progress since.   

Please understand that the lack of ObjC++ support is a *SERIOUS* impedement to
the GNUstep project as without ObjC++ we can only interface with C++ based
libraries by building a C bridge.   It also stops us from porting many apps and
frameworks which would be trivial if ObjC++ was present.  ObjC++ has been
"forthcoming" for the past two years and to see it sidelined yet again is, to
say the least, extremely frustrating because it only means that MORE will
change in the gcc baseline making it more difficult to merge from the
objectivec-improvements branch in the future.

If I had the time, I would help with this, but I am already on three free
software projects as it is.

Later, GJC

=====
Gregory John Casamento 
-- CEO/President Open Logic Corp. (A Maryland Corporation)
#### Maintainer of Gorm for GNUstep.

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Mark Mitchell]

Mike Stump wrote:

> Mark, I suppose we can discuss when that drop dead date is.  Has it 
> already passed?

No, but only because we're seeing enough other problems.  I've tried 
twice in the last week to put together a status report, but I keep 
getting overwhelmed by the current state of Bugzilla.  I really will get 
to that soon, I promise.  I would still like to see this happen for 4.0.

I think Joseph summarized the issues well.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Giovanni Bajo]

Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:

> No, but only because we're seeing enough other problems.  I've tried
> twice in the last week to put together a status report, but I keep
> getting overwhelmed by the current state of Bugzilla.  I really will
> get to that soon, I promise.  I would still like to see this happen
> for 4.0. 


Anything bugmasters can do to ease your work, just ask.

Giovanni Bajo

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Geoffrey Keating]

Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com> writes:

> On Nov 17, 2004, at 1:58 AM, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
> > I wanted to ask what the current status of Objective-C++ for
> > mainline gcc is. While there have been a lot of activity on the
> > gcc-patches and gcc-cvs lists several month ago it is now relatively
> > silent regarding this topic. Is all the work done now or did the
> > release plan slip backwards (to 4.1 or whatever)?
> 
> Last I knew, everything was solidly wedged behind Geoff's objection
> with no plan forward.  The objection will either have to be withdrawn,
> or Geoff will have to communicate his vision before any progress can
> be made.

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.

My last comment to Zem was:

> I still don't really know enough, but my best guess is that you
> should put an extra field in the lang_type structure for C, and in
> lang_type_class for C++.  Try that and let me know how it goes.

and so far as I know, he hasn't tried it yet.

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Gregory John Casamento]

See below...

--- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> wrote:

> Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com> writes:
> 
> > On Nov 17, 2004, at 1:58 AM, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
> > > I wanted to ask what the current status of Objective-C++ for
> > > mainline gcc is. While there have been a lot of activity on the
> > > gcc-patches and gcc-cvs lists several month ago it is now relatively
> > > silent regarding this topic. Is all the work done now or did the
> > > release plan slip backwards (to 4.1 or whatever)?
> > 
> > Last I knew, everything was solidly wedged behind Geoff's objection
> > with no plan forward.  The objection will either have to be withdrawn,
> > or Geoff will have to communicate his vision before any progress can
> > be made.
> 
> 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.

I think this is an unfair assessment of what Zem is doing.   He did propose
three alternatives and asked for objections.   You objected, but failed to give
any alternative suggestions or any clue as to why. 
 
> My last comment to Zem was:
> 
> > I still don't really know enough, but my best guess is that you
> > should put an extra field in the lang_type structure for C, and in
> > lang_type_class for C++.  Try that and let me know how it goes.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Only after some discussion did you produce the above suggestion.   If someone
has come up with a solution and you object to it, in my experience, the impetus
is squarely on the objector to come up with an alternative.
 
> and so far as I know, he hasn't tried it yet.

I can't speak to this, but perhaps we should ask him.

GJC

=====
Gregory John Casamento 
-- CEO/President Open Logic Corp. (A Maryland Corporation)
#### Maintainer of Gorm for GNUstep.

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Ziemowit Laski]

> 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.

> My last comment to Zem was:
>
>> I still don't really know enough, but my best guess is that you
>> should put an extra field in the lang_type structure for C, and in
>> lang_type_class for C++.  Try that and let me know how it goes.

...to which I replied:

   I have two questions/requests:
     (1) Should I add the extra field "unconditionally", i.e., so that 
is is there and unused even for plain C and C+?
     (2) Can you post your response to gcc or gcc-patches, preferrably 
as a response to my last e-mail (see URL above), so that other people
         may chime in?

   Thanks.

...to which Geoff politely retorted:

    (1) Zem, I really don't have time to design this for you.  Please do 
your own work.
    (2) Done.

(For those of you wondering, the above exchange took place within the 
confines of Apple's bug-tracking system.   You'll have to Geoff as to 
why he chose to conduct it there instead of the public FSF list where 
it belongs.)

So, the current status is:
    (a) Geoff has refused to provide an acceptable design;
    (b) Geoff has objected to all other designs presented.

--Zem

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Rogelio Serrano]

[snipped...]
> So, the current status is:
>     (a) Geoff has refused to provide an acceptable design;
>     (b) Geoff has objected to all other designs presented.
> 
> --Zem
[snipped...]

Well i can live with patches to mainline gcc. Maybe i can start tesing
gcc-improvements-branch again.

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Helge Hess]

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"?

It would be disappointing if the work on ObjC++ would fail even though 
there is someone willing to work on the implementation. We are waiting 
_so long_ for that feature ...

best regards,
   Helge
-- 
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/
OpenGroupware.org

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Gregory John Casamento]

--- Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org> 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.

It's silly to expect someone to constantly come up with designs without giving
you a clue as to what is and is not acceptable.   Given that Geoff is on the
list and is obviously working on gcc, it stands to reason that if he has a
problem with a particular implementation, the least he could do is *articulate*
the reason for the objection.

It's like objecting to a marriage and walking out without giving a reason why. 
You've put the kibosh on something, NOW you have to pay the price and explain
yourself, it's really just as simple as that.

> 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?

Barring any input from Geoff regarding what he thinks is acceptable and also
barring any constructive alternative presented by him, it seems reasonable for
Zem to continue what he's doing as it's silly for him to sit and wait for
feedback which Geoff is unwilling/unable to give.

> Or maybe Apple can consult (aka pay) Geoff to come up with a 
> "constructive alternative"?

Seems like the worst way to go.   Additionally, you're assuming that objecting
somehow implies superior skill.

> It would be disappointing if the work on ObjC++ would fail even though 
> there is someone willing to work on the implementation. We are waiting 
> _so long_ for that feature ...

Indeed.

> best regards,
>    Helge
> -- 
> http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/
> OpenGroupware.org

Later, GJC

=====
Gregory John Casamento 
-- CEO/President Open Logic Corp. (A Maryland Corporation)
#### Maintainer of Gorm for GNUstep.

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Matt Austern]

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

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Ziemowit Laski]

On 18 Nov 2004, at 20.25, Matt Austern wrote:

> 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.

Yes, some of this "silliness" (although it is symptomatic of things 
more serious) really should be confined to Apple, although I don't 
think it is appropriate to take the whole discussion offline 
altogether.  Just as currently Geoff is blocking an approach that Mark 
and Zack OKed (at least in principle), one could certainly envision 
Mark, Zack or others objecting to whatever we finally manage to agree 
upon in Cupertino.

--Zem

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Phil Edwards]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 08:52:44PM -0800, Ziemowit Laski wrote:
> 
> On 18 Nov 2004, at 20.25, Matt Austern wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> Yes, some of this "silliness" (although it is symptomatic of things 
> more serious) really should be confined to Apple, although I don't 
> think it is appropriate to take the whole discussion offline 
> altogether.  Just as currently Geoff is blocking an approach that Mark 
> and Zack OKed (at least in principle), one could certainly envision 
> Mark, Zack or others objecting to whatever we finally manage to agree 
> upon in Cupertino.

Nobody's proposing that the patch be worked on in stealth, to suddenly
get checked in from the secret underground Apple labs.

How about the Apple guys take it offline, come up with a design and some
initial patches, and /then/ bring it back to the lists?


-- 
Behind everything some further thing is found, forever; thus the tree behind
the bird, stone beneath soil, the sun behind Urth.  Behind our efforts, let
there be found our efforts.
              - Ascian saying, as related by Loyal to the Group of Seventeen

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Chuck Robey]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Phil Edwards wrote:

From a lurker, one who likes objc a lot, is there a written spec on what
the heck is objc++?

I'm worried it's going to bloat my favorite minimalist piece of software.

> On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 08:52:44PM -0800, Ziemowit Laski wrote:
> >
> > On 18 Nov 2004, at 20.25, Matt Austern wrote:
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > Yes, some of this "silliness" (although it is symptomatic of things
> > more serious) really should be confined to Apple, although I don't
> > think it is appropriate to take the whole discussion offline
> > altogether.  Just as currently Geoff is blocking an approach that Mark
> > and Zack OKed (at least in principle), one could certainly envision
> > Mark, Zack or others objecting to whatever we finally manage to agree
> > upon in Cupertino.
>
> Nobody's proposing that the patch be worked on in stealth, to suddenly
> get checked in from the secret underground Apple labs.
>
> How about the Apple guys take it offline, come up with a design and some
> initial patches, and /then/ bring it back to the lists?
>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Robey         | Interests include C & Java programming, FreeBSD,
chuckr@chuckr.org   | electronics, communications, and SF/Fantasy.

New Year's Resolution:  I will not sphroxify gullible people into looking up
fictitious words in the dictionary (on the wall at my old fraternity,
Signa Phi Nothing).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Phil Edwards]

On Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 08:58:05PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Phil Edwards wrote:
> 
> >From a lurker, one who likes objc a lot, is there a written spec on what
> the heck is objc++?

Not really.  There's certainly nothing formal like an ISO standard.
It essentially comes down to the set of documents published by Apple.
There are probably some links on gcc.gnu.org under the Readings section;
if they're not sufficient, then pester the ObjC++ crowd to submit patches.

-- 
"It won't be any more frightening than the time
I climbed up an elevator shaft with my teeth."
    - Sunny Baudelaire

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Ranjit Mathew]

Chuck Robey wrote:
> 
> From a lurker, one who likes objc a lot, is there a written spec on what
> the heck is objc++?
> 
> I'm worried it's going to bloat my favorite minimalist piece of software.

For starters, see:

http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/Cocoa/Objective-C++.html
http://cs.northwestern.edu/~josha/objcpp.htm

etc.

Ranjit.

-- 
Ranjit Mathew          Email: rmathew AT gmail DOT com

Bangalore, INDIA.      Web: http://ranjitmathew.tripod.com/

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Dale Johannesen]

On Nov 18, 2004, at 8:25 PM, Matt Austern wrote:

> 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.

Yep.  At least it may be educating the people who have the silly idea 
Apple is some kind of monolith....

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Dan Grillo]

Organize a lunch and work this out!

			--Dan

----- Begin forwarded message:

From: Dale Johannesen <dalej@apple.com>
Sender: discuss-gnustep-bounces+dan_grillo=grillo.net@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?
To: Matt Austern <austern@apple.com>
Cc: gcc mailing list <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>,
    GNUStep <discuss-gnustep@gnu.org>, Helge Hess
    <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>, Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com>, Dale Johannesen
    <dalej@apple.com>
Date: Fri, Nov 19 11:16:53 


On Nov 18, 2004, at 8:25 PM, Matt Austern wrote:

> 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.

Yep.  At least it may be educating the people who have the silly idea 
Apple is some kind of monolith....



_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep

----- End forwarded message
--
  Dan Grillo   dan@grillo.net  650-299-1470

RE: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Dave Korn]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-owner On Behalf Of Dale Johannesen
> Sent: 19 November 2004 19:17
> To: Matt Austern
> Cc: gcc mailing list; Mike Stump; Dale Johannesen; Ziemowit 
> Laski; Helge Hess; GNUStep; Geoffrey Keating
> Subject: Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?
> 
> 
> On Nov 18, 2004, at 8:25 PM, Matt Austern wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Yep.  At least it may be educating the people who have the silly idea 
> Apple is some kind of monolith....


  Apple IS a monolith, you can tell by the crowd of monkeys sitting in front
of it hitting each other with old bones!



[  No, that's not a reference to or accusation against anyone or thing in
particular.  I just like classic old SF movies.  :) ]

    cheers, 
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Richard Kenner]

    Since Geoff has objected to every design proposal I made, then
    naturally I was (and am) expecting a constructive alternative.

It would be nice if such a thing could be done, but I don't see it as
a requirement.  It is, after all, your project and what you are
essentially doing is asking for him to do the design for you.

It's true that if somebody doesn't like a design proposal they should be able
to articulate what exactly it is they don't like about it.  I don't believe
Geoff has done that completely, which is a legitimate complaint, but saying
"if you don't like my proposal, make your own" isn't fair: it's not his
project.  On the other hand, I perfectly well understand the difficulty in
articulating what one doesn't like about a proposal.  I've been there many
times: when you're very close to a project, you often get a "gut feeling"
that a patch isn't the right way to do something, but find it very hard to
say exactly why you think that and it can often take a lot of time to figure
it out.

Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Ziemowit Laski]

On 19 Nov 2004, at 5.01, Richard Kenner wrote:

>     Since Geoff has objected to every design proposal I made, then
>     naturally I was (and am) expecting a constructive alternative.
>
> It would be nice if such a thing could be done, but I don't see it as
> a requirement.  It is, after all, your project and what you are
> essentially doing is asking for him to do the design for you.

I'm not asking for a design; I'm asking for a green light to pursue a 
design direction.  And since none of my ideas are to Geoff's liking, 
then naturally I'd like to know what _would_ be to his (and other 
maintainers') liking.

--Zem