Stuart Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm. So does that mean it would be pointless to attempt to upgrade
> the work I have done to the beta4 spec?
>From a paperwork standpoint, we can probably use the SableUtil code.
However, I haven't started all the wheels in motion, because I'm
unsure if its worth the effort.
I need to know:
a) the quality of the SableUtil code
b) how much code do we lack from having the features that SableUtil has
c) does it make any sense to finish the work on our Collection API
I haven't had time to gather all this information. I do know that
SableUtil isn't 100% compatible with the Collection API, and they
only implement the following classes:
AbstractCollection.java List.java
AbstractList.java ListIterator.java
AbstractMap.java Map.java
AbstractSequentialList.java NoCast.java
AbstractSet.java Set.java
Cast.java SplayTreeMap.java
Collection.java Switch.java
Comparable.java Switchable.java
Comparator.java TypedLinkedList.java
ConcurrentModificationException.java TypedSplayTreeMap.java
Iterator.java UnsupportedOperationException.java
LinkedList.java
Stuart, do you have time to research this information and advise on
what I should do? btw, if you need a copy of SableUtil, it's over at
http://www.sable.mcgill.ca/sablecc/sablecc.jar.
> but if an entire java.util is going to come along from another
> group, it would probably be a waste, right?
As far as I know, SableUtil doesn't have any plans to implement the
entire java.util library -- they're just the Collection API.
> Btw, what is the address of the CVS repository now
I'll send you a personal email explaining the new CVS stuff...
--
(off to sleep. java.lang.Character commit in the morning)
Paul Fisher * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
