This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PROPOSED PATCH: Robustify cp_fold_obj_type_ref() for ObjC++ use
Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> writes:
| On Tuesday 21 September 2004 07:09, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | Another thing I am writing this as a non-Apple employee (I am no
| > | longer an intern at Apple anymore). But really the C++ front-end
| > | people are looking more and more dictators than maintainers.
| > | Making the wrong decision.
| >
| > So, the right decision is to approve patch from Objective-C++ people
| > modifying the C++ front-end without C++ people saying nothing? You
| > must have a singular definition or "dictator".
|
| Note that I really don't give a d*** about Obj-C++, I don't think C++
| maintainers are dictators, and I don't want to get into the discussion
| about the technical deficiencies or merits of Zem's patch or of hooks.
|
| But it is certainly true that the judgement of C++ maintainers is hard
| to follow for outsiders, sometimes. A lengthy flamewar follows on every
| patch Zem posts,
And from from I can see, those had been initiated by Objective-C+
proponent. Which is why I recall "vapor ware", "brutalize", etc.
| while others are somehow allowed to completely rewrite
| the C++ lexical analysis in stage3 and not get a single question about
| that from any C++ maintainer.
I think Benjamin Kosnik has tried to get a clarification about what is
appropriate for stage 3 at this moment. I wish his question did not
get dodged -- at least that was my impression.
| Gaby, note that Zem *did* ask "C++ people" for their opinion on his
| patch this time, with questions like "Would that be OK..." and "Please
| advise". "Pretty please" really should not be necessary for anyone to
| get a C++ patch approved (or disproved) without a flame war.
Notice that Andrew did start this hot subthread by throwing in fuel.
-- Gaby