I was trying to compile some existing OS X code, in which made heavy use of
Toll-Free bridging between CoreFoundation and Foundation and is written using
ARC. It doesn’t compile on GNUstep at all.
The culprit is that the toll-free bridging code typedef’d Foundation types to
CF types. This is no
Maybe this seem like crazy to you, I would like to contribute too, using two
projects as my first attempt, if I do have that time to carry it out:
* Grand Central Refactor, which shuffles code around libobjc2, Base and
CoreBase, merging the three separate projects into one big project that build
Okay, Sorry…
I am not having an exactly clear head now, sorry...
> On Apr 3, 2015, at 13:55, Gregory Casamento wrote:
>
> Maxthon,
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:51 AM, 陈北宗 wrote:
>> Maybe this seem like crazy to you, I would like to contribute too, using two
>> p
I am thinking about a new TFB semantics actually. (not compatible with ARC, but
not really an issue as CF is not ARC anyway)
Because of this, leveraging Objective-C’s @defs():
@interface NSPlayground : NSObject
{
id object;
// …
}
@end
typedef struct CFPlayground
{
@defs(NSPlayground);
}
When I said not compatible with ARC, I mean the resulting mix of CF and
Foundation code will not be able to be built using ARC. However it will produce
headers perfectly useable in ARC code, and the rest of Foundation can even be
modernised into taking advantage of ARC as well.
Other than the o
g the fields defined in @defs, but resolve ivars (other
than isa) using Objective-C runtime functions? This won’t break, I think.
> On Apr 9, 2015, at 16:02, David Chisnall wrote:
>
> On 8 Apr 2015, at 20:53, 陈北宗 wrote:
>>
>> When I said not compatible with ARC, I mean t
I had similar problems. The only thing that I managed to coax this into working
was compiling LLVM and clang from source too.
usually I just leave that LLVM optimise thing out as it just don’t feel like
something that can be easier retrofitted.
> On May 30, 2015, at 23:51, allynm wrote:
>
> H
Dear List:
I just forked libobjc2, base and corebase so I can restart the refactor project
again, now using OS X 10.11 as the refactoring standard. I would like to know
how should I contribute back?
Project plan:
1) Building with clang 3.6+ mandatory, even for C-only projects. This is to
allo
just a frontend with an
> integrated editor. How interesting will your implementation of build graph
> nodes classes be?
>
> I also noticed you mention Opal in relation to CF a few times. Why?
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 1:04 PM 陈北宗 <mailto:xcvi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
de is just a frontend with an
> integrated editor. How interesting will your implementation of build graph
> nodes classes be?
>
> I also noticed you mention Opal in relation to CF a few times. Why?
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 1:04 PM 陈北宗 <mailto:xcvi...@gmail.com>> wrote
ot; If you had
> submitted some changes they would have been considered.
>
> GC
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:43 AM, 陈北宗 wrote:
>> Also a little notification, I am bumping soname of libobjc2 in my fork
>> (“libobjc2-ng” version 2.0) to libobjc.so.6. Debian occupied lib
Testing for robustness of my Web development kit, and the default exception
handler caught this gem:
System Crash: NSException
Name: NSInternalInconsistencyException
Reason: [CGIAppDelegate application:handleContext:]
(/Users/……/Developer/CGIKit/CGIHello/CGIAppDelegate.m:44): This is just a tes
of Cocoa which are not required for correct
> functionality of GS.
>
> Similarly, Cocoa's Core Animation happens to be largely implemented in C++.
> Does it matter that GNUstep's is implemented in Objective-C, or is it gaps in
> functionality that are actually important?
>
> On Dec 6, 2015, at 04:07, Ivan Vučica wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:10 PM 陈北宗 <mailto:xcvi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 1) and 2) can get covered by uname-detecting and a little bit of command line
> art, and the rest get covered by clang. If a platform does not r
bout what sounds
> like it wants to be a non-upstreamable fork.
>
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 9:26 PM, 陈北宗 wrote:
>>
>> Oh okay then - I will try wrap my mind around CMake, but gnustep-make is
>> still going away.
>
> Because choice is clearly between cmake and g
lightly feeling like I'm biting the bait in responding to this. I
> don't believe I will participate in further discussions about what sounds
> like it wants to be a non-upstreamable fork.
>
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 9:26 PM, 陈北宗 wrote:
>>
>> Oh okay the
at 13:51, 陈北宗 wrote:
>>
>> This is the reason I am proposing moving libobjc2 and CoreBase to pure Cmake
>
> Please actually look at things before you propose modifying them. libobjc2
> uses pure CMake and has no dependencies on any other part of GNUstep,
> precisely
Who is currently maintaining Opal and UIKit? I think it would be better for the
same guy to maintain the entire graphics stack.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 14, 2015, at 15:21, Gregory Casamento wrote:
>
> All,
>
> With Fred's departure many months ago and with his self-proclaimed final
> co
So far I haven’t used it.
I have this feeling that we might need a major rewrite in the implementation of
network-related code if we want HTTP/2. Instead of extending the existing
implementation of our own, I would prefer using libcurl for those, as it
supports a wide array of different URL sch
Can those be reused for some scripting language other than AppleScript, for
example Guile, Lua, JavaScript (via node.js) or Swift REPL?
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 20, 2019, at 03:43, lars.sonchocky-helld...@hamburg.de
> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> the scripting language hasn’t necessarily to be
> H... Possibly. I hadn't thought about lua (etc) integration.
>>
>> GC
>>
>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 8:48 AM 陈北宗 wrote:
>>> Can those be reused for some scripting language other than AppleScript, for
>>> example Guile, L
What do you want to access it for? Invoking it? Copying it?
If it is latter, just copying or retaining the outer block is adequate, as
copying the outer block will cause the inner block be retained, which would
copy it if it is a stack block.
> On Oct 26, 2019, at 22:42, Gregory Casamento wrot
ll it out
> of the gnustep specific strict to use it.
>
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 11:28 AM 陈北宗 <mailto:xcvi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> What do you want to access it for? Invoking it? Copying it?
>
> If it is latter, just copying or retaining the outer block is adequate
>
> Not this in particular, but I'm aware there is free software for Mac.
> Unfortunately, most of it is not readily available or easily portable
> because it a) depends on other nonfree libraries; b) relies on
> functionality not yet implemented on GNUstep (which would be the case
> even if GNUs
>
> It is extremely naive to expect that macOS/iOS developers will start
> coming in numbers, anxious to implement classes and missing
> functionality, just because of that. GNUstep predates the thing
> called "Objective-C 2.0" and I don't remember an avalanche of patches
> flowing in before 2005
25 matches
Mail list logo
