Nicola, Iain, Mike,
It would be great if you all could update
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html and related with all the
great work that has gone into Objective-C++ recently.
Those of us hoping to play with the new Objective-C want to know. ;-)
Thank you,
Ed
, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net,
develo...@sandoe-acoustics.co.uk
Subject: Re: Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes
Nicola, Iain, Mike,
It would be great if you all could update
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html and related with all the
great work that has gone
On 2 November 2010 15:13, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
It would be great if you all could update
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html and related with all the great
work that has gone into Objective-C++ recently.
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/changes.html would make more sense!
Nov 2, 2010 01:23:28 PM, jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 November 2010 15:13, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
It would be great if you all could update
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html and related with all the great
work that has gone into Objective-C++ recently.
Nov 2, 2010 01:23:28 PM, jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 November 2010 15:13, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
It would be great if you all could update
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html and related with all the great
work that has gone into Objective-C++ recently.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 17:55, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:22 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
From the perspective of gcc, I think the goal of clang-gcc would be to
replace the current
On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:23 AM, Kevin André wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 17:55, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:22 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
From the perspective of gcc, I think the
[ about modifying the license of GPLv2 or later or similarly licensed
code ]
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 08:15:57AM CEST:
* Richard Kenner wrote on Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 12:17:47AM CEST:
It's my understanding that FSF legal department has consistently refused
to
FYI, quoting Brett Smith on this issue (with permission) below.
When the copyright holder of a program gives you permission to
redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General
Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either
version 2 of the License, or
On 9/15/2010 4:59 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
I don't mean to keep this thread alive longer, but that answer is
not to the question we've been discussing. OF COURSE you can
redistribute a GPLv2-or-later file under GPLv3-or-later. That's
never been the question!
The question is whether you can
I do not understand the difference between redistributing a file
under a GPLv3-or-later license, and distributing it under a license
that is GPLv3-or-later.
I'm not sure what the two things you list are, but the two that we're
talking about are:
(1) Distributing a GPLv2-or-later file as part
On Sep 15, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
FSF *policy* (not the GPL) requires that all files have GPLv3-or-later
license. The question is what permission you need to change a file
that has a GPLv2-or-later license into the required one.
None, the GPL v2 clause grants this right, if
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
In the same sense that adding clang-gcc means that there is less
motivation for developers to improve the current C/C++ FEs.
From the perspective of gcc, I think the
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
In the same sense that adding clang-gcc means that there is less
motivation for developers to improve the current C/C++ FEs.
From the perspective of gcc, I think the
On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:22 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
In the same sense that adding clang-gcc means that there is less
motivation for developers to improve the current
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:22 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
In the same sense that adding clang-gcc
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 06:09, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
In the same sense that adding clang-gcc means that there is less
motivation for
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 06:09, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
In the same sense that adding clang-gcc
On 09/10/2010 03:12 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 10 September 2010 15:00, Steven Bosscherstevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Richard Kenner
ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote:
Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
proprietary
On 13 September 2010 12:30, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On 09/10/2010 03:12 PM, Manuel López-Ibáńez wrote:
On 10 September 2010 15:00, Steven Bosscherstevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Richard Kenner
ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote:
Some strong way of
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 01:44:57PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 13 September 2010 12:30, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
Hmm, my impression was that GCC can mostly gain from clang-gcc, and only
lose from llvm-gcc...
What will be gained and what will be lost in your opinion?
On 13 September 2010 16:55, Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 01:44:57PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 13 September 2010 12:30, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
Hmm, my impression was that GCC can mostly gain from clang-gcc, and only
lose from
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
From a user-perspective, there are benefits on both clang-gcc and
gcc-llvm. However, from what I know about the GCC project, I don't
see yet how GCC developers can consider either more beneficial than
the other.
It seems to me that at the
On 9/13/10 2:04 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Therefore, I see a clear benefit to clang-gcc, but I
do not see a clear benefit to gcc-llvm.
Suppose you have large Fortran applications, and want to accelerate
parts of them on graphics processors.
Several of the OpenCL implementations use LLVM for
On 13 September 2010 22:04, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
From a user-perspective, there are benefits on both clang-gcc and
gcc-llvm. However, from what I know about the GCC project, I don't
see yet how GCC developers can consider
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
On 13 September 2010 22:04, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
From a user-perspective, there are benefits on both clang-gcc and
gcc-llvm. However, from what I know about the GCC project,
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you are again talking about user benefits. You don't see a
(user) benefit in gcc-llvm because you perhaps do not use the
features that LLVM has and GCC doesn't. But users of gcc-llvm surely
see a large
On 13 September 2010 23:41, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
On 13 September 2010 22:04, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
From a user-perspective, there are benefits on both
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand the benefit that existed before clang. And my general
understanding is that clang C++ support is not yet complete, so there is
a benefit there, but only a temporary one. I don't see a real benefit
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
By that rule, it is clearly beneficial for some gcc users to compile
Fortran using dragon-egg to take advantage of OpenCL. Ergo, dragon-egg
is beneficial to GCC.
That's pretty special purpose, though. Not something I would personally
On 14 September 2010 00:16, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand the benefit that existed before clang. And my general
understanding is that clang C++ support is not yet complete, so there
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com writes:
In the same sense that adding clang-gcc means that there is less
motivation for developers to improve the current C/C++ FEs.
From the perspective of gcc, I think the goal of clang-gcc would be to
replace the current frontends entirely.
Ian
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 September 2010 00:16, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand the benefit that existed before clang.
* Richard Kenner wrote on Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 12:17:47AM CEST:
It's my understanding that FSF legal department has consistently refused
to answer such questions as this.
Do you have a quote for that, please?
How do you quote somebody who DOESN'T answer?
I've asked for you now.
Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu writes:
[...]
Alternatively, perhaps Apple could clarify their own license file to
clearly indicate that they do not prohibit their GPLv2 code from being
relicensed as GPLv3-only code. After all, this doesn't really change
the licensing status of
Well, the words on their distribution say exactly this:
GCC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later
version.
That
Hello,
* Richard Kenner wrote on Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 01:18:10PM CEST:
That means, we at our option can choose to release under GPL v3,
exclusively, if we wanted.
I disagree, as I said.
My interpretation of that sentence is that when you redistribute
this, you must give the person you
Please ask the FSF legal dept. to clarify the situation once and for
all, they should be able to provide you with a binding (as for GCC)
answer within a short time frame.
It's my understanding that FSF legal department has consistently refused
to answer such questions as this.
* Richard Kenner wrote on Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 11:01:56PM CEST:
Please ask the FSF legal dept. to clarify the situation once and for
all, they should be able to provide you with a binding (as for GCC)
answer within a short time frame.
It's my understanding that FSF legal department has
It's my understanding that FSF legal department has consistently refused
to answer such questions as this.
Do you have a quote for that, please?
How do you quote somebody who DOESN'T answer?
The FSF has consistently refused to answer questions of the form if I did
XYZ, would it violate
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 06:17:47PM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
It's my understanding that FSF legal department has consistently refused
to answer such questions as this.
Do you have a quote for that, please?
How do you quote somebody who DOESN'T answer?
The FSF has consistently
On 11/09/2010 23:17, Richard Kenner wrote:
It's my understanding that FSF legal department has consistently refused
to answer such questions as this.
Do you have a quote for that, please?
How do you quote somebody who DOESN'T answer?
By using a null string, of course!
cheers,
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Joe Buck joe.b...@synopsys.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 02:11:43PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Perhaps a rational approach would be to contact whoever at Apple
currently is
charged with maintaining
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Btw, we do seem to have code in GCC that is not copyrighted by the FSF.
For example I don't think the FSF owns copyright on the ACATS
testsuite, and libffi mentions (c) by RedHat.
That code is not part of the
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just practical considerations...
;-) I can't believe I'm saing this but: It may be better to spend
some effort on making clang work as a GCC front end.
Oh, indeed - I'd
Btw, we do seem to have code in GCC that is not copyrighted by the FSF.
For example I don't think the FSF owns copyright on the ACATS
testsuite, and libffi mentions (c) by RedHat.
That code is not part of the compiler proper. The policy has always
been different for the test suites and for
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote:
* What standard is going to be implemented? ObjC 2.0 is not even a
documented language standard, so you probably end up with something
that is incompatible with Apple ObjC anyway. Without a documented
standard, the only standard is the Apple
Btw, we do seem to have code in GCC that is not copyrighted by the FSF.
For example I don't think the FSF owns copyright on the ACATS
testsuite, and libffi mentions (c) by RedHat. For GCC as a project it
should matter that the code is distributable under GPLv3 which I think
Apples changes
So is it Ok to import testcases (in this case, from Apple's own GCC)
without a copyright assignment ? :-)
I see the smiley, but I'd say the serious answer to that is that it
might or might not be depending on what we knew about the copyright
status of that code.
If we knew (and this is the
On 10 September 2010 11:42, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com
wrote:
Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just practical considerations...
;-) I can't believe I'm saing this but: It may be better to
Oh, indeed - I'd welcome patches making frontend plugins possible
and plugging clang.
I wonder what would actually be needed to implement this?
Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
proprietary front-ends or proprietary back-ends using part of GCC!
On 10 September 2010 14:22, Richard Kenner ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote:
Oh, indeed - I'd welcome patches making frontend plugins possible
and plugging clang.
I wonder what would actually be needed to implement this?
Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 September 2010 11:42, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com
wrote:
Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just
Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
proprietary front-ends or proprietary back-ends using part of GCC!
Why is this case different from the existing llvm-gcc?
It's the question of what one means by plug-in interface. If you
view it as no different from
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Richard Kenner
ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote:
Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
proprietary front-ends or proprietary back-ends using part of GCC!
Why is this case different from the existing llvm-gcc?
It's the
On 10 September 2010 14:40, Richard Kenner ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote:
But if this were done, then it would be trivial to have proprietary
front ends, back ends, and optimizers. So RMS never allowed any such
thing nor any scheme that resulted in having any file that could be
used for
On 10 September 2010 15:00, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Richard Kenner
ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote:
Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
proprietary front-ends or proprietary back-ends using part of
On 10 September 2010 15:12, Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 September 2010 15:00, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Richard Kenner
ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote:
Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 03:09:02PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 10 September 2010 14:40, Richard Kenner ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote:
But if this were done, then it would be trivial to have proprietary
front ends, back ends, and optimizers. So RMS never allowed any such
thing
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com
wrote:
Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just practical considerations...
;-) I can't believe I'm saing this but: It may be better to spend
some effort on making
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Paulo J. Matos pocma...@gmail.com wrote:
May I ask why would GCC want clang as a frontend? Would it supersede the
current C frontend?
I suppose not, but it could supersede the ObjC and ObjC++ front ends.
And from there -- who knows.
Ciao!
Steven
On 10 September 2010 15:25, Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 03:09:02PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 10 September 2010 14:40, Richard Kenner ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu
wrote:
But if this were done, then it would be trivial to have proprietary
On Sep 10, 2010, at 4:52 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
I thought the point is that Apple WON'T go to GPLv3.
The Apple distributions are GPLv2 or later, meaning if someone wanted to take
that code and distribute it under then GPLv3, they could.
On Sep 10, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
More seriously, the issue is copyright law. In order to write a
front-end for GCC right now (or for a GCC front end to use another
backend), you have to use a sufficient number of header files and
interfaces of GCC that there's no question
On Sep 10, 2010, at 2:42 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com
wrote:
Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just practical considerations...
;-) I can't believe I'm saing this but: It may be better to spend
some effort on making
I thought the point is that Apple WON'T go to GPLv3.
The Apple distributions are GPLv2 or later, meaning if someone wanted to
take that code and distribute it under then GPLv3, they could.
The fact that the licenses are COMPATIBLE doesn't make them IDENTICAL.
FSF wants GPLv3 or later and
On Sep 10, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
I thought the point is that Apple WON'T go to GPLv3.
The Apple distributions are GPLv2 or later, meaning if someone wanted to
take that code and distribute it under then GPLv3, they could.
The fact that the licenses are COMPATIBLE
The code in the apple branch on the fsf server *is* copyright assigned to
the FSF.
Right. That's why a previous email in this thread said there was no
problem with them. I thought the remaining discussion was about
files in OTHER places.
On Sep 10, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
The fact that the licenses are COMPATIBLE doesn't make them IDENTICAL.
FSF wants GPLv3 or later and it's not at all clear to me that we could
change the license of code that's not copyright assigned to FSF to that
license (we can for code
The fact that the licenses are COMPATIBLE doesn't make them IDENTICAL.
FSF wants GPLv3 or later and it's not at all clear to me that we could
change the license of code that's not copyright assigned to FSF to that
license (we can for code that HAS been assigned).
Ah, but the GPL v2
On Sep 10, 2010, at 7:51 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
I disagree. The copyright holder has decided that they want people to
(among other things) allow people to distribute under GPLv2. We can't
take that away without the permission of that holder.
Well, the words on their distribution say
Can we (legally) merge Apple's Objective-C / Objective-C++
modifications to GCC into FSF GCC trunk ?
Any legal obstacles ?
If we start producing patches to the current FSF GCC trunk that merge
these modifications, would they be accepted ?
I think Apple would benefit from merging of their
Can we (legally) merge Apple's Objective-C / Objective-C++
modifications to GCC into FSF GCC trunk ?
Any legal obstacles ?
I assume Apple had signed a copyright assignment to the FSF for all
changes to GCC, moreover I checked
the modified GCC source code that Apple distributes and all the
On Sep 9, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
Can we (legally) merge Apple's Objective-C / Objective-C++ modifications to
GCC into FSF GCC trunk ?
My take, you'd have to ask either the FSF lawyers or Apple, I'm neither. Chris
Lattner could provide an Apple answer, I'd recommend contacting
I assume Apple had signed a copyright assignment to the FSF for all
changes to GCC, moreover I checked
the modified GCC source code that Apple distributes and all the
copyright notices on all files mention the
Free Software Foundation Inc. as the copyright holder.
I guess that means
On Sep 9, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
Can we (legally) merge Apple's Objective-C / Objective-C++ modifications to
GCC into FSF GCC trunk ?
Any legal obstacles ?
If we start producing patches to the current FSF GCC trunk that merge these
modifications, would they be accepted ?
Chris
thanks a lot for your answer. That makes sense - I had not realized that most
of the Apple GCC Objective-C / Objective-C++ changes
were already sitting on the FSF servers in an Apple branch :-) Can someone
from the FSF confirm that it's OK to merge code from there ?
I did look at the
On 09/09/2010 12:01, Mike Stump wrote:
On Sep 9, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
Can we (legally) merge Apple's Objective-C / Objective-C++ modifications
to GCC into FSF GCC trunk ?
My take, you'd have to ask either the FSF lawyers or Apple, I'm neither.
Chris Lattner could provide an
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 08:27:16PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
On 09/09/2010 12:01, Mike Stump wrote:
On Sep 9, 2010,@3:11 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
Can we (legally) merge Apple's Objective-C / Objective-C++ modifications
to GCC into FSF GCC trunk ?
My take, you'd have to ask either the FSF
On 09/09/2010 20:19, Jack Howarth wrote:
On 09/09/2010 12:01, Mike Stump wrote:
Chris Lattner could provide an Apple answer, I'd recommend contacting him.
Perhaps a rational approach would be to contact whoever at Apple currently
is
charged with maintaining their objc languages about
On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
*Until and unless* Apple itself submits the code to the FSF, Apple retains
the copyright; which means that nobody else has the right to submit it to the
FSF. (Unless Apple gives /them/ (the hypothetical third party) an assignment
that allows
On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Perhaps a rational approach would be to contact whoever at Apple currently
is
charged with maintaining their objc languages about the issue.
Apple does not have an internal process to assign code to the FSF anymore. I
would focus on the
On Sep 9, 2010, at 11:55 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
Why don't you upload one of the recent Apple GCC tarballs in a branch on the
FSF server ?
...
You don't have to do it, but contributing changes back to the original
project seems to be the right, honourable thing to do, particularly when it
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 02:11:43PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Perhaps a rational approach would be to contact whoever at Apple
currently is
charged with maintaining their objc languages about the issue.
Apple does not have an internal
84 matches
Mail list logo
