+1 Thanks, Mikhail
2006/3/17, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > +1 > > This opens up so many new opportunities for contribution that I think > it's worth the risk of relying on an undocumented compiler feature ... > and since the Eclipse compiler supports it then the risk is mitigated > to a large extent anyway. > > Regards, > Mark. > > > On 3/17/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As discussed on the list, there is a compiler option in the 5.0 > > compilers we use that allows source code containing a subset of Java 5.0 > > language features to be compiled into 1.4 compatible class files. > > > > Since this is quite a significant change I'd like to get a vote on > > whether the project should make this compiler option a necessity for our > > code. > > > > The positive outcome of this is that we can develop APIs that rely on > > those 5.0 language features, and run the resulting code on existing > > 1.4-compatible VMs. > > > > The downside is that we are using an undocumented compiler feature on > > the reference implementation (it is supported on the Eclipse compiler). > > > > [ ] +1 - Yes, change the build scripts to compile 5.0 code to 1.4 target > > [ ] 0 - I don't care > > [ ] -1 - No, don't change the compiler options (please state why) > > > > > > Regards, > > Tim > > > > -- > > > > Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > IBM Java technology centre, UK. > > > > > -- > Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > IBM Java Technology Centre, UK. >
