Re:

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

> This is the part that I find problematic. :-(  The work contained in the
> two patches I posted last night, in addition to a couple of patches I
> committed previously (and a few more I have yet to offer) is all part
> of my ObjC++ integration (approved by the Steering Committee for 3.5
> integration).  Furthermore, these bits already live in
> objc-improvements-branch, available for the bootstrapping pleasure of all.

I think that it's up to you to decide to take Zack's advice, or not. 
Merges from a branch still need to be reviewed by someone with 
appropriate write privileges.  I think that, given Zack's message, he'll 
not be inclined to review your patch in its current state.  I think that 
the reason he's asking you to break it up is so that it is easier to 
review.  If someone else will review it as it stands, then you don't 
need to break it up.

You might want to try to make a deal with Zack whereby he will commit to 
reviewing the patches, if you will break them up, so that you know that 
you will at least be assured of getting a review if you do the work of 
breaking it up.  I have no idea whether Zack would agree to that deal or 
not, though; that is up to him.

> > > -  if (!objc_is_public (datum, component))
> > > +  if (c_dialect_objc () && !objc_is_public (datum, component))
> >
> > Most objc_* functions are designed not to need guarding with
> > c_dialect_objc(), therefore I think it best if all of them don't; in
> > other words, please cause objc_is_public to always return true when
> > !c_dialect_objc, so this change will be unnecessary.
>
>
> Again, perhaps Mark can issue a ruling here.  

The C front end maintainers are probably the best people to ask for a 
final decision.  I don't really know the C front end well enough to know 
what the historical decisions about style have been, or how strongly 
people think we should continue to follow the historical precedent.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com