[Squeakfoundation]ContextCleanupPlus-ajh (was: Re: KCP & 3.6)

[PhiHo Hoang]

Hi Joshua,

> 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.

    Thanks, I missed this runtime requirement.
    I did not look at SmaCC code.

> 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 ;-)

> > 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.
>

    OTOH, I felt sickened at the heart when Alan had to appeal to
    Squeakers to share the fruits of their research.

    Cheers,

    PhiHo.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus" <schwa at cc.gatech.edu>
To: "Discussing the Squeak Foundation"
<squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]ContextCleanupPlus-ajh (was: Re: KCP & 3.6)


> On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:08:54AM +0100, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> > Hi guys!
> >
> > Stephane Ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> 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
> > Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation