At 07:53 AM 12/5/2004, Joe Orton wrote: >On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 12:53:58PM +0000, Thom May wrote: > >You don't say which you propose to change, but either way it's an API >change not really worth bumping the major number for, I'd reckon. >There's an objection to making the md5 functions return void in STATUS, >FWIW.
Note that on x86 platforms, in general, adding a return type in place of a previous void type is a noop. However, if you code for testing the 'new' return type in 1.1 - the author is free (by our version rules) to assume their code will work back in 1.0 - and the random garbage will cause their code to hiccup if the test the rv. But this is implementation specific, and it's quite possible that on another platform, potentially mainframe compilers for example, adding a return type may break the call/return stack semantics. This simply isn't a good idea until 2.0. Bill
