Re: Is ObjC++ still in time for 4.0?

[Chuck Robey <chuckr at chuckr dot org>]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Phil Edwards wrote:

>From a lurker, one who likes objc a lot, is there a written spec on what
the heck is objc++?

I'm worried it's going to bloat my favorite minimalist piece of software.

> On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 08:52:44PM -0800, Ziemowit Laski wrote:
> >
> > On 18 Nov 2004, at 20.25, Matt Austern wrote:
> >
> > >This discussion should probably happen offline.  It's in Apple's
> > >interest for ObjC++ to get into mainline.  It's also in Apple's
> > >interest to make sure that there aren't any changes that hurt compiler
> > >performance.  It's silly for this discussion to be happening on an
> > >international email list when most of the people participating in it
> > >have offices on the same floor of the same building.
> >
> > Yes, some of this "silliness" (although it is symptomatic of things
> > more serious) really should be confined to Apple, although I don't
> > think it is appropriate to take the whole discussion offline
> > altogether.  Just as currently Geoff is blocking an approach that Mark
> > and Zack OKed (at least in principle), one could certainly envision
> > Mark, Zack or others objecting to whatever we finally manage to agree
> > upon in Cupertino.
>
> Nobody's proposing that the patch be worked on in stealth, to suddenly
> get checked in from the secret underground Apple labs.
>
> How about the Apple guys take it offline, come up with a design and some
> initial patches, and /then/ bring it back to the lists?
>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Robey         | Interests include C & Java programming, FreeBSD,
chuckr@chuckr.org   | electronics, communications, and SF/Fantasy.

New Year's Resolution:  I will not sphroxify gullible people into looking up
fictitious words in the dictionary (on the wall at my old fraternity,
Signa Phi Nothing).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------