Dalibor, Do you plan to apply this patch? If not, I'll apply it on the debian package.
Thu, 25 Nov 2004 19:54:27 +0200, Konstantinos Margaritis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Πεμ 25 Νοε 2004 02:40, Kiyo Inaba wrote: >> I am wondering, your patch may reject proper (as far as I know) >> file name like 'foo.class.class' to be rejected. Is it illegal to >> use names like that? > > hi, > > I just consulted some more knowledgeable people than me on this on > irc, here is the discussion (with permission): > > <markos_> hey, wrt to the last mail from Kiyo Inaba, are class names > of the form name.class illegal? (so that the source is > name.class.java and the class name is name.class.class) > <dalibor> shoot > <markos_> i'm pretty sure that they should be illegal, but i'd like to > be sure... > <dalibor> uh. > <markos_> i sent a patch to avdyk, so that kjc would reject a class > called with the extension .class (ie java name.class) > <dalibor> i don't think name.something.java is a legal file name for > javac because it messes up the class lookup > <dalibor> as . signifies directories, actually. > <dalibor> (exceot the . before java) > <markos_> ah, that clarifies it > <markos_> i'll quote you in my response :-) > <dalibor> you could cc: tromey, too ;) > <markos_> i'll cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <dalibor> sounds good. > > So, I guess it's ok to reject the extension .class from a class name. > > _______________________________________________ > kaffe mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://kaffe.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kaffe > > -- Arnaud Vandyck http://fosdem.org/ Free and Open Source Developers' European Meeting February 26-27 2005, Bruxelles, Belgium _______________________________________________ kaffe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kaffe.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kaffe
