[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gcc
Subject:    Re: Objective-C++
From:       Ziemowit Laski <zlaski () apple ! com>
Date:       2004-06-15 5:36:53
Message-ID: 01ECBB6A-BE8E-11D8-B240-00039390FFE2 () apple ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Mark,

Thank you for taking the effort to bring this matter before the 
Steering Committee.  The conditions for acceptance of Objective-C++ 
seem reasonable and we shall endeavor to meet them as soon as possible.

For everyone's convenience, work on Objective-C++ shall continue on the 
objc-improvements-branch (with frequent merges from mainline) until 
everyone is satisfied that the criteria set forth by the SC have been 
met -- and, of course, no regressions are caused.

Thanks again,

--Zem

On 14 Jun 2004, at 8.31, Mark Mitchell wrote:

> Zem --
>
> The SC has decided to accept Objective-C++, in principle.  However, 
> there are a few steps that must be taken before that can happen.
>
> First, the SC wants reasonable documentation for Objective-C++ to be 
> made available.  There's an understanding that Apple may not have a 
> specification that is at the level of an ISO standard; a user's manual 
> or reference guide is OK.
>
> Second, the documentation requirements for any GCC patch must be met. 
> These include changes to the manuals mentioning 
> Objective-C++describing any Objective-C++ command-line options. Also, 
> every new function must have a comment that explicitly describes how 
> each parameter is used and what the function returns.
>
> When these two requires are satisfied, please post a patch.  Please 
> copy  Joseph Myers, Jason Merrill and myself; hopefully between the 
> three of us we can get it reviewed relatively quickly.
>
> Objective-C++ will not be considered when making releases.  The state 
> of Objective-C++ will be irrelevant when deciding whether or not to 
> make a release.  However, the SC hopes that Apple will provide 
> resources to ensure that Objective-C++ stays in reasonable shape.  
> Furthermore, nobody will be required to test Objective-C++ as part of 
> the check-in cycle, and people who cause defects in Objective-C++ will 
> not necessarily be required to fix them, although good manners 
> dictates that people will help clean up their own mess where 
> practical.  The default configuration for GCC should not include 
> Objective-C++; a user who wants Objective-C++ should explicitly use 
> --enable-languages.
>
> The rationale for this compromise position is that the SC feels that, 
> on the one hand, it would be unfair to turn away Apple's contribution. 
>  On the other, the SC is concerned about possible maintenance issues.  
> The approach outlined above allows Apple to contribute Objective-C++, 
> but also reflects the expectation that Apple will be largely 
> responsible for the maintenance of Objective-C++.
>
> Yours,
>
> -- 
> Mark Mitchell
> CodeSourcery, LLC
> mark@codesourcery.com
>

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]