[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?
From: |
Chuck Robey |
Subject: |
Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0? |
Date: |
Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:58:05 -0500 (EST) |
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Phil Edwards wrote:
>From a lurker, one who likes objc a lot, is there a written spec on what
the heck is objc++?
I'm worried it's going to bloat my favorite minimalist piece of software.
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 08:52:44PM -0800, Ziemowit Laski wrote:
> >
> > On 18 Nov 2004, at 20.25, Matt Austern wrote:
> >
> > >This discussion should probably happen offline. It's in Apple's
> > >interest for ObjC++ to get into mainline. It's also in Apple's
> > >interest to make sure that there aren't any changes that hurt compiler
> > >performance. It's silly for this discussion to be happening on an
> > >international email list when most of the people participating in it
> > >have offices on the same floor of the same building.
> >
> > Yes, some of this "silliness" (although it is symptomatic of things
> > more serious) really should be confined to Apple, although I don't
> > think it is appropriate to take the whole discussion offline
> > altogether. Just as currently Geoff is blocking an approach that Mark
> > and Zack OKed (at least in principle), one could certainly envision
> > Mark, Zack or others objecting to whatever we finally manage to agree
> > upon in Cupertino.
>
> Nobody's proposing that the patch be worked on in stealth, to suddenly
> get checked in from the secret underground Apple labs.
>
> How about the Apple guys take it offline, come up with a design and some
> initial patches, and /then/ bring it back to the lists?
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Robey | Interests include C & Java programming, FreeBSD,
chuckr@chuckr.org | electronics, communications, and SF/Fantasy.
New Year's Resolution: I will not sphroxify gullible people into looking up
fictitious words in the dictionary (on the wall at my old fraternity,
Signa Phi Nothing).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?, (continued)
- Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?, Mark Mitchell, 2004/11/17
- Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?, Geoffrey Keating, 2004/11/18
- Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?, Gregory John Casamento, 2004/11/18
- Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?, Ziemowit Laski, 2004/11/18
- Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?, Rogelio Serrano, 2004/11/18
- Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?, Helge Hess, 2004/11/18
- Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?, Gregory John Casamento, 2004/11/18
- Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?, Matt Austern, 2004/11/19
- Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?, Ziemowit Laski, 2004/11/19
- Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?, Phil Edwards, 2004/11/19
- Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?,
Chuck Robey <=
- Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?, Phil Edwards, 2004/11/22
- Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?, Dale Johannesen, 2004/11/19
- Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?, Dan Grillo, 2004/11/19
Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?, Richard Kenner, 2004/11/19