"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 15:58 -0500, Raul Miller wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:19:36PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote: >> >> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL >> > >> > "However, when the interpreter is extended to provide "bindings" to >> > other facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the >> ... >> > Do you understand that an interpreter for Java IS such an interpreter >> > that provides "bindings" to other facilities? >> >> But was Kaffe _extended_ to provide such bindings for Eclipse 3.0? > > This FAQ entry discusses 2 cases. One is when we have an interpreter, > that basically goes over the pseudo-code and purely "interprets" it > (an old BASIC interpreter would fit here). No Java VM/interpreter > _ever_ fits in this first, simple casse.
I think you're making untenable conclusions based on your knowledge of accidents of implementation of Java VMs. A Java bytecode interpreter is just an interpreter. The class libraries matter, and the libraries exposed through the JNI interface matter. > On the contrary. A Java Virtual Machine (Java interpreter) inevitably > has to provide such bindings to support Java specification. In other > words the interpreter itself has to be extended with a library that > provides these bindings to support Java specs. There's plenty of these > bindings required to exist in core java.lang.* classes. This confuses me, though. Can you provide an unambiguous example? -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
