Re: PATCH: Find more ObjC methods

[David Ayers]

Ziemowit Laski wrote:

> I do not work on GNUStep and so do not have a horse in this race, but 
> IMO the reasons you outlined are nothing short of horrible.  You 
> should be using forward declarations ("extern int foo; extern void 
> bar(void);"), compiling your implementation files separately, and then 
> letting ld(1) do its thing. 

First to clarify my "we" didn't refer to GNUstep (sorry for being 
ambiguous), but to larger application framework projects.  Also, 
exporting these symbols are not an option, at least not without 
obfuscating them to avoid clashes with user code, but I don't see why we 
should have to just because you may not agree with this kind of coding 
scheme.

> personally I'd consider it _essential_ that the wording be
> different (e.g., "method `+foo' not published in @interface' or
> something along those lines).

This is absolutely reasonable and along the lines of what I was thinking 
of.  The only detail left would be that it might need an extension like 
"and not part of current @implementation context".  But , like I said, 
those are details.

Cheers,
David Ayers