From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26662 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2004 17:15:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact mauve-discuss-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: mauve-discuss-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26639 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2004 17:15:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 22 Oct 2004 17:15:24 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9MHFJGd019019 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:15:24 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn50-42.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.42]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i9MHFCr26887; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:15:13 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 36AC22DC402; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:14:31 -0600 (MDT) To: Mauve News Group Cc: Chris Abbey Subject: jacks updates From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com X-Attribution: Tom Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:15:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-q4/txt/msg00017.txt.bz2 Ok, I've checked in the minor Jacks bug fixes I've collected from the recent past. Mostly just typos, but also an additional test for method overriding (it seems that we could use more here) and a real fix to some test output. I also have a patch to change jacks to use tclsh8.4 -- I made this change locally since FC2 doesn't ship tclsh8.3. If nobody objects I'll make this change in the mauve cvs repository as well. Also, I have some tests (some by me, some posted to the jacks list this year) for 1.5 things: boxing, foreach, and enums. In my repository I have these in tests/non-jls/, but I suppose they probably belong in tests/jls now. Chris, what do you think? Also there's the question of what to do about code that was invalid in 1.4 but is now valid in 1.5. For instance something like Object x = 5; falls into this category due to auto-boxing. We could either modify these tests so that they are always invalid, or we could mark them so that we can continue testing compliance to 1.4 and 1.5. I'm inclined toward the latter offhand. Tom