From: Alex Perez <aperez@student.santarosa.edu>
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:50:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cngntr$33c$1@sea.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041117230536.GA6006@disaster.jaj.com>
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-17 23:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-11-17 10:28 Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf
2004-11-17 20:51 ` Mike Stump
2004-11-17 21:53 ` Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf
2004-11-17 22:28 ` Ziemowit Laski
2004-11-17 22:54 ` Gregory John Casamento
2004-11-17 23:02 ` Nicolas Roard
2004-11-17 23:31 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-11-17 23:17 ` Phil Edwards
2004-11-17 23:50 ` Alex Perez [this message]
2004-11-18 0:06 ` Joe Buck
2004-11-18 0:35 ` Gregory John Casamento
2004-11-18 0:46 ` Gregory John Casamento
2004-11-18 0:53 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-11-18 1:18 ` Giovanni Bajo
2004-11-18 23:22 ` Geoffrey Keating
2004-11-18 23:28 ` Gregory John Casamento
2004-11-19 0:57 ` Ziemowit Laski
2004-11-19 1:26 ` Rogelio Serrano
2004-11-19 1:41 ` Helge Hess
2004-11-19 4:26 ` Gregory John Casamento
2004-11-19 5:49 ` Matt Austern
2004-11-19 6:42 ` Ziemowit Laski
2004-11-19 7:52 ` Phil Edwards
2004-11-22 3:22 ` Chuck Robey
2004-11-22 10:07 ` Phil Edwards
2004-11-22 10:31 ` Ranjit Mathew
2004-11-19 19:44 ` Dale Johannesen
2004-11-19 20:04 ` Dan Grillo
2004-11-19 20:08 ` Dave Korn
2004-11-19 13:31 Richard Kenner
2004-11-19 20:22 ` Ziemowit Laski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='cngntr$33c$1@sea.gmane.org' \
--to=aperez@student.santarosa.edu \
--cc=discuss-gnustep@gnu.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).