Taming Java Libraries in E vs. Joe-e

Jimmy Wylie writes:
>I haven't seen anything substantial yet.  For example, I looked at 
>File.java. E has it tamed, but Joe-E has simply suppressed every method. 
>(I'm guessing to be safe until taming decisions are made.)

Yeah.

>From reading 
>the aforementioned link,  I'm guessing it has something to do with the 
>resolution of "..".  E can wrap the class and check for "..".  But, I 
>don't see how Joe-E would be able to do that without shipping its own 
>version of File.java. 

org.joe_e.file.Filesystem is a start at this which addresses
the ".." issue; but still File needs to be tamed before that solves
the issue.

>    This leads to other issue I'm having.  I'm not really sure what 
>classes I can make valid comparisons between.  Joe-E is a subset of Java 
>while E is its own language.  So E has more flexibility in what it can 
>do to tame classes.

Yes, there are some differences, though for most Java library classes,
I'd expect the taming issues for Joe-E and E ought to be pretty similar.
(Core types, like Boolean, may be one place where more significant
differences are to be expected.)