Re: [PATCH] New C++ ABI compatibility changes.

[Alexandre Petit-Bianco <apbianco at cygnus dot com>]

Tom Tromey writes:

> Now it occurs to me that maybe we could just have an initializing
> constructor in Class instead of a no-arg constructor and a copy
> constructor.  Then we wouldn't need this extra static class around.
> Or, failing that, I also think we could just remove the `static'
> from the iclass definition.

So you'd like to write `java::lang::Class _Jv_<type>Class (....);' We
can do that, and get rid of copy constructor. I have something almost
ready for that. I'll submit it later.

./A