Re: Question about ObjC++ state

2005-03-03 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: Question about ObjC++ state

2005-03-03 Thread Mark Mitchell
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

Re: Question about ObjC++ state

2005-03-03 Thread Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf
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

Re: Question about ObjC++ state

2005-03-01 Thread Rogelio M . Serrano Jr .
-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.

Re: Question about ObjC++ state

2005-03-01 Thread 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 reviewed and OKed and it will be checked in, or that's w