>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> If you are going to check this in could you also check in some
Mark> other stuff that I send to the list but that never made it into
Mark> the tree?
I'll try to do it soon. We'll see.
Mark> P.S. I don't have that much time but I am currently working on
Mark> java.util.jar (which is partially done), java.net.URLClassLoader
Mark> (should be checked with the libgcj one), java.util.Timer (from
Mark> 1.3, almost done) and Package support in java.lang.ClassLoader
Mark> (which I think can be done in pure java). Please let me know if
Mark> you really need this and think I am taking much to long then I
Mark> can send you what I have now.
I don't think there is a big rush. I'm personally in favor of
incremental improvement: if you have something, and it compiles, and
you can easily explain what is missing, then checking it in is (IMO)
better than waiting. Then if you lose interest, someone else can
easily pick up where you left off.
Mark> P.P.S I notice that my coding style is different from the coding
Mark> styles used in Classpath. Is there an agreed upon coding style
Mark> and is there a way I can convince emacs to use it? Or is there a
Mark> code beautifier/identer for that style?
There's some dispute about some details of the coding style, but in
general the style is the GNU C style, appropriately modified for Java.
My Emacs seems to come up in this style by default. (Mostly it is a
question of knowing when to hit Enter.)
The libgcj sources tend to be a bit more (but not perfectly)
consistent in terms of style.
It is definitely my preference that we eventually converge on a single
style.
I'm unaware of any free software Java beautifiers. But then, I
haven't really looked, either.
Tom
