Re: [abc] test run results

On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:10:05PM +0200, Aske Simon Christensen wrote:
> > 724: new - declare class implements class
>
> ajc fails this one. <class> implements <class> is not legal according to this
> test case, but ajc accepts it. Which one should we follow - ajc or the test?
>
> I think <class> implements <class> does not make sense...

I agree that class implements class does not make sense, and I wouldn't
oppose rejecting it. However, atrack does this in at least one instance.

So, we need to make a decision whether we want to compile atrack as it
is, or whether we want to propose a set of patches needed to compile
atrack with abc.

It's possible that the atrack people will accept our patches into their
code base, if we can convince them that they make the code clearer. In a
case like this, I can't imagine why they would oppose a patch that
changes class implements class into class extends class.

> > Gained:
> > 991: abctests/bugs - declare parents causes interface to implement itself
>
> When an interface extends itself, it is now an error. I will change it to be a
> noop, and only be an error if it extends a proper subinterface. That should
> take care of the atrack case.

That would be great.

Ondrej

>
> -Aske
>
>
Received on Fri Sep 24 15:25:56 2004