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

[Gregory John Casamento]

See below...

--- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> wrote:

> Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com> writes:
> 
> > On Nov 17, 2004, at 1:58 AM, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
> > > I wanted to ask what the current status of Objective-C++ for
> > > mainline gcc is. While there have been a lot of activity on the
> > > gcc-patches and gcc-cvs lists several month ago it is now relatively
> > > silent regarding this topic. Is all the work done now or did the
> > > release plan slip backwards (to 4.1 or whatever)?
> > 
> > Last I knew, everything was solidly wedged behind Geoff's objection
> > with no plan forward.  The objection will either have to be withdrawn,
> > or Geoff will have to communicate his vision before any progress can
> > be made.
> 
> Zem is asking me to design his frontend's data structures for him.  I
> don't have time to do that right now, and Zem hasn't done the design
> work himself, so we're waiting.

I think this is an unfair assessment of what Zem is doing.   He did propose
three alternatives and asked for objections.   You objected, but failed to give
any alternative suggestions or any clue as to why. 
 
> My last comment to Zem was:
> 
> > I still don't really know enough, but my best guess is that you
> > should put an extra field in the lang_type structure for C, and in
> > lang_type_class for C++.  Try that and let me know how it goes.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Only after some discussion did you produce the above suggestion.   If someone
has come up with a solution and you object to it, in my experience, the impetus
is squarely on the objector to come up with an alternative.
 
> and so far as I know, he hasn't tried it yet.

I can't speak to this, but perhaps we should ask him.

GJC

=====
Gregory John Casamento 
-- CEO/President Open Logic Corp. (A Maryland Corporation)
#### Maintainer of Gorm for GNUstep.