Jim Grandy wrote:
> Below are some questions about Legals bugs. Legals folks, please scan  
> this list and provide answers for any you know about.
> 
> jim
> 
> 
> LPP-98 - Compiler source-source transformations should be in separate  
> phase -- Hasn't this been done?
> 
> LPP-160 - Replace callInherited by bytecode -- either this is already  
> done or we defer post-Legals.
> 
> LPP-440 - Compilation Manager does not manage debugger -- Still valid?
> 
> LPP-786 - add if (!$debug) {} compiler directive -- Still valid?
> 
> LPP-928 - Remove LzTransformer -- Hasn't this been done?

I did this some time ago...

> LPP-930 - add support for 'class' keyword -- Hasn't this been done?
> 
> LPP-931 - add "JavaScript" back end to compiler - Hasn't this been done?
> 
> LPP-1326 - Pass list of events to runtime -- Isn't this Invalid now?

This is invalid/has been done manually.

> LPP-1352 - ECMA4: Implement classes -- Hasn't this been done?
> 
> LPP-1420 - DHTML kernel: Implement display node -- What's this about?

It's a basic view.  Done some time ago.

> LPP-1421 - DHTML kernel: Multiframe resources -- Hasn't this been done?

Also done a while ago.

> LPP-1542 - Build mini-lfc with script compiler, emit individual files  
> for debugging -- Done, right?
> 
> LPP-1545 - Compile-time warnings for runtime-specific features --  
> Still valid?

This still needs to be done - the current requires/provides 
implementation only handles runtime warnings...

> LPP-1555 - Investigate loader in AJAX -- Still valid?

Invalid now...

> LPP-1641 - syntax error while compiling LFCdhtml -- Hasn't this been  
> done?
> 
> LPP-1915 - setAttribute should not call sendEvent if there are no  
> listenters -- Surely this is resolved? Or is it essentially the same  
> as LPP-2065?
> 
> LPP-1933 - Compiler does not scope #pragma to compile-time  
> conditional block -- Did this get resolved?
> 
> LPP-1946 - logdebug has rotted -- Either fixed, or folks are getting  
> by. Defer?
> 
> LPP-1987 - Make all wrappers standards compliant -- The first part of  
> this is done, no?
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Laszlo-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev

_______________________________________________
Laszlo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev

Reply via email to