--- James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Matt Benson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've actually been thinking the same thing--if we
> get
> > other issues sorted out before adding generics
> code.
> > I'm just trying to keep my personal desire for a
> > 1.3-compatible release from infringing too much
> on
> > others who may not want it. I actually don't
> have
> > much to gain from such a release, but a) you
> never
> > know what you'll need tomorrow/next week/year,
> and b)
> > I've yet to find anything in the codebase that
> says
> > IMMATURE! to me, so I don't see why we can't
> resolve
> > any issues fairly quickly. If we're that close
> to
> > being able to provide a working implementation,
> why
> > shouldn't we?
> >
>
> I'm +1 on releasing a 1.0 version. It seems a shame
> to tear up other
> people's hard work so flippantly. :) I think the
> API is pretty good
> as-is from what I've used in the past. We should
> make sure the code
> coverage is pretty good, though. Why didn't this
> ever graduation into
> proper in the first place? Not enough community?
>
I don't know and haven't combed the archives 'cause
I'm lazy. Later today I'll blow away my branch if we
think we can whip what's there into shape prior to
tackling generics.
-Matt
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total
Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
