On Mar 3, 2005, at 5:11 PM, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
Sure, why not... Either, someone will submit a clean, safe patch
and it will be reviewed and OKed and it will be checked in, or
that's won't happen.
can I asume that this is a political change by Apple in this regard?
I tried to describ
Mike Stump wrote:
If such a patch
were submitted, it would have to go into mainline first anyway, if it
proves safe there and people want to propose a version of it for 4.0.x,
then I think the RM would have to reevaluate it on its merits and risks
and the timing. I don't see the need for the R
Am Mittwoch, 02.03.05 um 03:52 Uhr schrieb Mike Stump:
On Feb 28, 2005, at 3:41 AM, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
I'd like to know what the 'official' position regarding ObjC++ is now.
Anybody willing to clear up?
Sure, why not... Either, someone will submit a clean, safe patch and
it will be r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2005-03-02 10:52:38 +0800 Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snipped..]
P.S.: cc'ed to the GNUstep list just for informational purpose
[ assuming that list is still closed, since, you didn't say they
opened it ]
Will you please stop doing that.
On Feb 28, 2005, at 3:41 AM, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
I'd like to know what the 'official' position regarding ObjC++ is now.
Anybody willing to clear up?
Sure, why not... Either, someone will submit a clean, safe patch and
it will be reviewed and OKed and it will be checked in, or that's w
Now that the 4.0 Branch has been created and ObjC++ is still not in GCC
(since Zem Laski seems to be to busy with other things currently and
obviously nobody else is able to pick up the loose ends and do the merge)
I'd like to know what the 'official' position regarding ObjC++ is now.
I did not
