This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Your 'Class <Protocol>' Work
- From: kaih at khms dot westfalen dot de (Kai Henningsen)
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 01 Oct 2004 08:39:00 +0200
- Subject: Re: Your 'Class <Protocol>' Work
- Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.
- Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
- References: <B5E59844-10B9-11D9-900Aemail@example.com> <CF6F7415-1328-11D9-A719firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <8AD84E9F-1344-11D9-A719email@example.com
firstname.lastname@example.org (Ziemowit Laski) wrote on 30.09.04 in <8AD84E9F-1344-11D9-A719email@example.com>:
> is not implemented by protocol(s). (This raises a separate, tangential
> protocols don't really implement things -- perhaps "not listed in
> would be better?)
Isn't that what C generally calls "declared"? I think where generic C
vocabulary is sufficient, Objective C shouldn't use new terms.