[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: hello

From: Marko Mikulicic
Subject: Re: hello
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:13:04 +0100

On 12.11.2005., at 21:46, Abelardo Gutierrez wrote:

Hi, I have been maintaining Sather for a couple of month and:

1) yes, the last release is the 1.2.2, I have not released a new
version of the development branch since I take over the maintenance.
Basically 1.2.2 was a fix to make the stable branch work with gcc 3.x,
but it has been tested only on Linux, since I don't have access to any
other platform.  But it should compile fine in other platforms with
ANSI standard c compilers, may be you're not following the build
procedure (building 1.2.2 is not the standard autotools process).

I ran succesfully sather 1.2.2 with gcc 3.4.2 on a x86 linux.
I had to correct the System/Common/CONFIG file
for some strange reason quotes for the PLATFORMS value was misplaced:

-- This file has been created by......

"   <- note here
------------> GNU Sather ....
-- for a detailed desc........ PLATFORMS: "linux;    <-  note here

on the macosx platform I've made a couple of changes. For example there is no
values.h and not f_log single precision functions.

2) the last maintainers left the repositories at Savannah in very bad
shape, and since I have only received a few questions since I've been
sather's maintainer, I haven't taken the time to clean it up and sync
with my development tree.  But if you are interested I could make it,
so we can work together in this.

Yes I would be very interested in the GNU sather project.
Do you think is feasible to make it a frontend of GCC?

3) I have an almost ready version of the 1.3 branch that I will
release soon. it will be nice if we can make it work both in linux and

yes. Maybe switching to use the autotools would be a good point to gain from the experience of many developers of portable software. Personally I hated autotools because they seemed to create monstruos makefiles and take really long time to execute, but then I learned how they work and saw that the major problem is automake and most of the times the inherent complexity of the software.
 It's possible to use only autoconf without automake.

I find interesting the sather language. There is only one think that I find annoying:
why is not possible to inherit from a concrete class?
For example I would like to subtype INT and constrain it to a specific range (like in ada). without having to create a specific numeric subclass with all of its methods etc, but just by defining a class invariant.

Marko Mikulicic

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]