"John Keiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Fisher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Fisher
> > Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 1:30 PM
> > To: Classpath
> > Subject: Re: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited
> >
> >
> > "John Keiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > LESS_NATIVE (try to use absolutely as little native code as possible).
> > > MORE_NATIVE (move more stuff into native than usual).
> >
> > I fail to see the purpose of these as well.
> >
>
> Actually, I was trying to accomodate your problem. I don't really like
> these defines either. But what defines would you use to accomplish your
> purpose? Will they be general enough to make some general statement?
Isn't this really just talking about whether the class is native
or not? String probably could be implemented as mostly or all Java
and use char[] for storage and representation.
Brian
