[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Sponsor for a bootstrapping Java++ compiler


Thanks for your answer, I had given up hope!

The package cannot yet be built entirely with free tools (it needs a JVM
at build time to run the bootstrap compiler). It works with kaffe from
CVS, but not 1.0.7, so I hope there will be a new release soon.

Have you file a wishlist bug against kaffe? Or even a bug, when it's a bug that causes the problem.

I didn't, because I know the bug is fixed upstream.
Are you suggesting that the bugfix be back-ported to the version in Debian?

Or that there would be a package made of the current CVS status of kaffe? Thatcould be either as a new version of the 'kaffe' package, or as a new 'kaffe-snapshot' so people are not forced to upgrade. Of course, new bugs could have been introduced too. Would other people benefit from a version from cvs? 1.0.7 is quite old (july 2002), so I think many bugs have been fixed since. People on the debian-java, what is your experience with both versions?
Is the packager reading this?



PS: This part about Nice itself is offtopic. I reply below, and if you want to discuss it further, you are very welcome to do it in private email with me, or you can join the nice-info mailing list and raise the issue there.

Homepage: http://nice.sourceforge.net

Looks nice ;) Though I have to say that what it tries to do does not have to imply all the syntactic changes I see, or is all that really necessary? Making so many changes to the syntax makes moving from Java<->Nice
too difficult.

We are trying to keep syntax compatibility with Java when it is possible without damaging too much coherence. Virtually all Java expressions and statements are accepted in Nice. The main difference is the syntax for method declarations. There are reasons for that, since Nice is based on multi-methods, but a compromise is also proposed. Some other aspects are also still in discussion. This is a good time to discuss these issues, since we are approaching a stable release (0.8), the last one before 1.0, and I would rather do syntax changes now than later.
What particular syntax differences are annyoing you?



Reply to: