Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Phil Edwards]

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?


-- 
Behind everything some further thing is found, forever; thus the tree behind
the bird, stone beneath soil, the sun behind Urth.  Behind our efforts, let
there be found our efforts.
              - Ascian saying, as related by Loyal to the Group of Seventeen