Re: ContextCleanupPlus-ajh (was: Re: KCP & 3.6)

On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:08:54AM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi guys!
> 
> Stephane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote:
> [SNIP]
> > But ClosuresCs does not depend on SmaCC. It has been generated using  
> > SmaCC which
> > is different. I do not need to include bison because I use a parser  
> > developed with it.
> > Or there is something wrong.
> > Can you let me know if I'm wrong?
> > Stef
> 

Unlike bison, which outputs a parser that only requires a C compiler, to
run a SmaCC-generated compiler, you need to load the SmaCC runtime package.
I couldn't find anything on the SmaCC site that suggests that the license
is any different for the SmaCC runtime than for the full SmaCC.

> The problem with the above reasoning is that it assumes people only
> want/need to *use* the Compiler and not *change* it.
> 
> Before we had a Compiler that was written in Squeak - and thus also
> modifiable in Squeak using Squeak itself (all under Squeak-L).
> 
> If we choose to move over to a SmaCC generated Compiler (which of course
> would be technically great) we will have a Compiler that can not be
> modified using only Squeak itself. Unless SmaCC gets included into
> official Squeak of course - which it could if it came under Squeak-L,
> which it doesn't.
> 
> People may think this is a "small" issue. Personally I think it is a
> quite important issue. Every other little piece of the Squeak image is
> modifiable by Squeak itself. The VM too - though not to the full extent
> (you need a C compiler etc). This would suddenly make the Squeak image
> "non self hosted".
> 
> Hopefully we can though still somehow get SmaCC under Squeak-L and the
> problem would be solved. 

Has anyone contacted the SmaCC authors and asked?  Maybe we can get
Alan to ask; it would be tough for a Smalltalker to say no ;-)

> 
> Then Stephane wrote comments on the other extensions and I agree to the
> comments (but I haven't looked at the code) made. Just adding a little
> method in base classes here and there may seem "innocent" enough but
> they add up and eventually turns into a mess.
> 
> regards, G?ran
> 
> PS. People may find it tempting to simply drop the "golden rule" sofar
> that everything in official Squeak should be under Squeak-L. That would
> probably (as Andrew Greenberg has pointed out multiple times) lead to a
> legal minefield and be very bad for Squeak.

Looking at the SCO situation, we would be very stupid to do something
like this.

Joshua


> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation