Re: Parenthesized Target Notation (was: Partial retraction)

On 11/05/2005, at 2:53 PM, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:

> We've had a thread about 'clone' ...  But this is a LOVELY
> irony:  SmartEiffel is being bashed because it *DOES* conform
> to ECMA Eiffel!

And the prettiest irony of all is that ISE Eiffel -- sometimes  
castigated on this list as "ECMA Eiffel" -- has had both 'clone' and  
'twin' for a while now and, judging by its track record, will  
probably retain 'clone' for some years yet. Which just goes to show  
that, although the backward incompatibilities in the standard may be  
of deep academic interest, in practice Eiffel compilers don't have to  
break existing code at all. For such compilers, it's more like a  
gradual transition than a reckless fork.

> So here is SmartEiffel being criticised for a change which is in  
> fact an
> ECMA Eiffel change!  There's something sadly funny about that.

The SmartEiffel team has told us that they agree with many of the  
ECMA changes. I'm pleased, not saddened, that they've managed to agree.

- Peter Gummer