From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9759 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2004 01:31:12 -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 9752 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2004 01:31:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO april.chuckr.org) (66.92.151.30) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 22 Nov 2004 01:31:08 -0000 Received: from april.chuckr.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by april.chuckr.org (8.13.1/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAM1w7Rk004122; Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:58:07 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from chuckr@chuckr.org) Received: from localhost (chuckr@localhost) by april.chuckr.org (8.13.1/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id iAM1w5In004119; Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:58:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from chuckr@chuckr.org) X-Authentication-Warning: april.chuckr.org: chuckr owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:22:00 -0000 From: Chuck Robey To: Phil Edwards cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Helge Hess , discuss-gnustep@gnu.org Subject: Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0? In-Reply-To: <20041119054937.GA3823@disaster.jaj.com> Message-ID: <20041121205644.D4002@april.chuckr.org> References: <442C1616-387F-11D9-9815-0030654C2998@hamburg.de> <3D92B030-39C3-11D9-8317-00039390FFE2@apple.com> <1B18C7B1-39E3-11D9-B2D5-000A95BCF344@apple.com> <20041119054937.GA3823@disaster.jaj.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00729.txt.bz2 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). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------