Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Merging ANY and GENERAL

Expand Messages
  • Roger Browne
    The first topic to be discussed is the proposal to merge the features of ELKS GENERAL into ELKS ANY, and to drop ELKS GENERAL as a required ELKS class. This
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 11, 2001
      The first topic to be discussed is the proposal to merge the features of
      ELKS GENERAL into ELKS ANY, and to drop ELKS GENERAL as a required ELKS
      class.

      This would have no adverse effect on existing vendors, as their GENERAL
      features would simply be inherited into ANY. It would allow ISE (who no
      longer provide class GENERAL) to become ELKS-compatible.

      The proposed change would have an effecton any existing code that assumes
      the existence of class GENERAL. It would make this code
      non-ELKS-compliant. Such code would be very unusual, and is already
      non-interoperable.

      If anyone has anything to add to the previous discussions on this
      subject, or would like to re-iterate previous arguments, please do so
      now. As the previous discussions generally favoured the proposed change,
      it is especially important to hear from anyone who opposes the proposed
      change.

      I have uploaded vendor versions of ANY/GENERAL, and the ELKS95 version,
      to the usual site:

      http://www.eiffel.demon.co.uk/nice/

      Regards,
      Roger
      --
      Roger Browne - roger@... - Everything Eiffel
      19 Eden Park Lancaster LA1 4SJ UK - Phone +44 1524 32428
    • Emmanuel STAPF [ISE]
      ... We do not provide GENERAL anymore. The rational was that as you said in your previous message that code using GENERAL is unusual. Also we believe that no
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 12, 2001
        > features would simply be inherited into ANY. It would allow
        > ISE (who no
        > longer provide class GENERAL) to become ELKS-compatible.

        We do not provide GENERAL anymore. The rational was that as you said in
        your previous message that code using GENERAL is unusual. Also we
        believe that no code should have been using GENERAL, but ANY as it is
        the real ancestor to all Eiffel classes. So far no one has been
        complaining about a missing class GENERAL in our latest 5.0 release.

        Regards,
        Manu
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.