Mathieu Suen wrote:
> Well so propose us your solution.
> At least the new compiler exist .

You are missing my point entirely. I wasn't talking about inventing a 
solution - I was talking about adopting one, such as from NewCompiler if 
it's a viable, robust solution. But I don't know if it is, and I  find 
little of a discussion about it and I couldn't try for myself. So it's 
kinda hard to tell.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

> 
> On Dec 19, 2007, at 6:12 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:
> 
>> Philippe Marschall wrote:
>>>> there is really no reason whatsoever why a working closure solution
>>>> couldn't be adopted to the current compiler (which would mitigate the
>>>> risk factors of adoption dramatically).
>>> They why was the closure solution of the new compiler rejected?
>>
>> "The closure solution rejected"? Not that I know of. I haven't even 
>> seen a thorough discussion about its merits (which should include 
>> benchmarks etc) - what I did see was some talk that led me to believe 
>> that there is still a ways to go here. To the best of my knowledge 
>> this solution isn't "final" by any means.
>>
>> Or do you mean the compiler itself? In which case all I can say it's 
>> hard to recommend a compiler which can't even recompile Object ;-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  - Andreas
>>
>>
> 
>     Mth
> 
> 
> 
> 
>