On 7/08/12 1:41 PM, "John Gilmore" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Implicit dependencies are much more important than explicit ones. >Changes in the long-established behavior of a translator, even when >they correct a notional error, inevitably break much old code; and >they do so in ways that are difficult to anticipate. > >If different behavior is required, the better thing to do is to >introduce a new, and newly named, facility that provides it. > >John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA True enough. The sad thing is that this approach, while far more backwardly compatible, can leave a translator (or any other tool or facility, for that matter) supporting a lot of "broken" behaviours indefinitely. The translator, or facility, or whatever, can become a nightmare to maintain because it's so weighed down with the past. It also becomes harder to use because the documentation becomes similarly weighed down. Not, I suppose, that this is news to anyone reading this list. :) Allen Gainsford
