Log of the #nice channel on irc.freenode.net

Using timezone: Central European Time
* arjanb leaves01:06
* CIA-3 leaves09:15
* CIA-3 joins
03bonniot * 10Nice/stdlib/nice/lang/strings.nice: 11:16
Replaced join by a generic version on Collection<T>.
Contributed by Andy Glover.
03bonniot * 10Nice/stdlib/nice/lang/collections.nice: Nicedoc comment for foreach.11:54
* arjanb joins13:01
* fcb joins16:23
hello arjan
<fcb>I just downloaded the latest from the cvs16:39
it didn't seem to compile too well16:40
(I'm not asking you to fix it now, just wondering if the problem is unique to me)
<arjanb>which version do you use to compile it?16:41
<arjanb>of the compiler
<fcb>how would I find out?
<arjanb>nicec --version
I forget that I actually have nice installed separately from the cvs
<arjanb>can you try http://nice.sourceforge.net/nice.jar16:44
<fcb>I've actually tried that already16:45
<arjanb>then it should work
<arjanb>what's the error you get?
<fcb>~/Nice/stdlib/nice/lang/collections.nice: line 131, column 5:16:47
No method called foreach is compatible with these patterns
make: *** [bootstrap] Error 2
maybe cvs has got confused16:49
<arjanb>trying the latest cvs version too
same error :(16:50
something is broken in the last few days
<fcb>that's ok, then :)16:51
at least it's not me!
<arjanb>i send a mail to daniel17:02
<CIA-3>03arjanb * 10Nice/stdlib/nice/lang/rawArray.java: More flexible variant of reflect.Array.set() (not used yet)18:04
* fcb leaves18:50
* CIA-3 leaves
* fcb joins
* CIA-3 joins
* bonniot joins19:23
<CIA-3>03bonniot * 10Nice/stdlib/nice/lang/collections.nice: Fix the parameter names in the implementation of foreach.19:28
<bonniot>bootstrap should work now ;-)
arjan, is Array_set used at the moment, or is it for later use?21:37
i want to use it for bug #921206 when it's in the bootstrap21:57
<CIA-3>03arjanb * 10Nice/ (3 files in 3 dirs): Changed compilation of generic arrays sets fixes bug #921206.22:27
<arjanb>i think 3 of the bug reports are rfe's22:39
#791630, #875242, #908931 and maybe #87127922:40
<bonniot>791630 yes22:42
908931 I consider a bug, and it should be easy to work around
871279 yes, RFE22:43
for 875242 we need to figure out which one is the most logical rule22:44
<arjanb>close #922057 as not reproducable?22:58
and #907234 is a RFE or a won't fix23:01
<bonniot>i could actually reproduce 922057 with IBM's VM23:09
<arjanb>is it a jvm bug?
<bonniot>either that, or a java compiler bug23:10
not clear yet
but it should be fixable by using a different java compiler or option, I'll see
907234 could be low-priority RFE23:12

Generated by Sualtam