[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: PATCH: Find more ObjC methods

From: David Ayers
Subject: Re: PATCH: Find more ObjC methods
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:23:53 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030827

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.

David Ayers

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]