Re: C++'s new 'export' Keyword?

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Phil Edwards <phil@codesourcery.com> writes:

| On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 05:17:57PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org> writes:
| > 
| > | CodeSourcery. If one of Red Hat or CodeSourcery's clients believed
| > | that export is important, we'd already have an implementation of it. 
| > 
| > Yes, the usual self-fulfilling prophety.
| 
| Exactly.  Plenty of people think export is important.  They also think that
| other things are more important.  That does /not/ mean that export is /not/
| important, unless you flunked your logic course at university.  They have
| finite money to pay, so work gets done on what they think is most important.

Oh sure.  "corporate-based" reasoning is usually "interesting".

  (1) The above quote said "if one of xxx or yyy clients believed that
      export is important, we'd already have an implementation of it."
      Sure, I can't argue with that.  But does the fact that we don't have
      an implementation of it yet mean that all of "xxx and yyy"
      clients think export is unimportant? 

  (2) We've got a *three* men company implement export.  That is a
      fact.  And they do their compiler implementation job for living.


  (3) I certainly won't tell xxx or yyy company how they should spend
      their moneys; but some "mystifications" we've gotten in this
      thread need to be cleared out.
  
-- Gaby