From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-105464-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26159 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2004 00:37:58 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 26134 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2004 00:37:53 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out3.apple.com) (17.254.13.22)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Nov 2004 00:37:53 -0000
Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (a17-128-100-204.apple.com [17.128.100.204])
	by mail-out3.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAJ0hwAq006800
	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:43:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay2.apple.com (relay2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com
 (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.14) with ESMTP id <T6d58f4c998118064cc618@mailgate2.apple.com>;
 Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:37:52 -0800
Received: from [17.219.197.191] ([17.219.197.191])
	by relay2.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAJ0bolc022150;
	Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:37:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <m2is82okds.fsf@greed.local>
References: <442C1616-387F-11D9-9815-0030654C2998@hamburg.de> <C949FF38-2681-48A5-94D9-0228551C5902@apple.com> <m2is82okds.fsf@greed.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <3D92B030-39C3-11D9-8317-00039390FFE2@apple.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com>, GNUStep <discuss-gnustep@gnu.org>
From: Ziemowit Laski <zlaski@apple.com>
Subject: Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:57:00 -0000
To: gcc mailing list <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00657.txt.bz2

> 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