> NP> Yes - we shouldn't have all those warnings around - thanks for > NP> fixing them. I applied your patches :-) > > I forgot to mention: RTFConsumer.m left unchanged >
Thanks - sorry, I didn't see the warning as that's not generated by older compilers, and didn't want to change 'self' to a hardcoded class name as that potentially limits subclassing (not really relevant here, maybe, but still psychologically disturbing). The code is somewhat right and the compiler could be smarter and figure out what's happening, and not generating the warning :-) if it doesn't find the method in interfaces or protocols, it looks for it in the current implementation context, but does not look for it in implementation contexts of superclass(es) which might have already compiled, so it doesn't realize the method has been implemented in the same compilation unit, and ends up generating this sort of spurious warning. I have clean testcases, but don't have the time to fix/improve the compiler now -- maybe in the future. Still, the code was right but clunky. It had a few `handy' methods, which were not public though, and never used in the code itself :-) I think it was a historical relict of changes we did in the past. I just killed those (currently pointless) methods and cleaned the code. Thanks for pointing out that this issue still needed resolving! _______________________________________________ Bug-gnustep mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnustep
