verify?

Wed Mar 5 00:10:00 GMT 2003

Well, hell if my replies aren't going to the maillist, then that explains it.
> dependencies, which I expect is part and parcel of the class loading
> process.
Look. I do not doubt your knowledge of classloaders and such, but gcj
simply isn't the same as your regular java compiler. For one thing if
you compile native code, there is not VM.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, but what's the point of arguing it? The only way to compile _correctly_ is to have the compiler draw in the _required_ information to generate a correct code. Arguing about gcj != java is in this case is like saying you want to create a ansi c compiler that does not have to accept include files, and then get angry when people try to compile their code that has include files in them. I get the idea you aren't the individual who's dealing with compiler issues, so why are you replying about this?
I've fixed the problems you keep writing about already. I've been at a loss why you keep typing more and more about a problem I am not having.
---------
And you certainly can't blame Tom or anyone else on the list for the
fact that the documentation is lacking in some places: YOU ARE GUILTY, I
AM GUILTY. IT"S GVD GNU. If you don't write it, or I don't write it,
then nobody will.
^^^^^^^^
I guess I'm guilty because I've written none. I just tried to use the compiler as documented and have the problems I am having. It seems silly to get angry at me about writing docs for something I don't know anything about, eh?