From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17470 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2004 01:38:12 -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 17434 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2004 01:38:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.mdlink.net) (213.211.192.34) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Nov 2004 01:38:06 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.mdlink.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D43729E5C5; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 02:37:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from [213.187.86.104] (unknown [213.187.86.104]) by mail.mdlink.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 084A929E5C2; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 02:37:00 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <3D92B030-39C3-11D9-8317-00039390FFE2@apple.com> 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: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Mike Stump , Geoffrey Keating , GNUStep , gcc mailing list From: Helge Hess Subject: Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0? Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 01:41:00 -0000 To: Ziemowit Laski X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00662.txt.bz2 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