From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <mauve-discuss-return-907-listarch-mauve-discuss=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 2172 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2005 05:08:45 -0000
Mailing-List: contact mauve-discuss-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:mauve-discuss-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/mauve-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:mauve-discuss@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:mauve-discuss-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: mauve-discuss-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 1866 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Sep 2005 05:08:30 -0000
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (HELO zproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.162.195)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 05:08:30 +0000
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id m7so1633906nzf
        for <mauve-discuss@sources.redhat.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.54.140.10 with SMTP id n10mr2239769wrd;
        Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.54.126.14 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <39399b9d05092022082b9094a3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 05:08:00 -0000
From: Ranjit Mathew <rmathew@gmail.com>
Reply-To: rmathew@gmail.com
To: tromey@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Keeping Jacks Up-to-date
Cc: mauve-discuss@sources.redhat.com
In-Reply-To: <m3irwv4xgs.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <dgg0sn$js7$1@sea.gmane.org> <m3hdcjd9m7.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
	 <dghi45$m58$1@sea.gmane.org> <m3zmq96ru7.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
	 <39399b9d05091923102eaf5502@mail.gmail.com>
	 <m3irwv4xgs.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
X-SW-Source: 2005-q3/txt/msg00058.txt.bz2

On 20 Sep 2005 08:37:07 -0600, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> Yeah.  The 201 additions were not planned much.
> >> Feel free to fix this stuff if you like.
>=20
> Ranjit> Judging by your recent patch, and just to be clear, you'd prefer
> Ranjit> the constraints to be "boxing", "staticImport", "generics", etc.
> Ranjit> rather than a blanket "jsr201", right?
>=20
> Actually I expect we won't gain much by having separate constraints,
> most compilers just have a single 1.4/1.5 switch (gcjx has separate
> switches but it isn't totally clear that this makes sense in all
> circumstances -- I imagine I'll end up getting rid of those).

So we should just have a single "jls3" (or whatever) constraint
to cover all these?

Ranjit.

--=20
Ranjit Mathew      Email: rmathew AT gmail DOT com

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