Isn't the problem that these changes aren't compatible right now anyway? If
I need to add an entry to an enum right now, older readers fail when trying
to handle that data. This creates a way to avoid that failure in new
versions.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Doug Cutting <cutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Matthieu Monsch <mon...@alum.mit.edu>
> wrote:
> > + For unions, we will add an optional catch-all attribute to mark a
> branch as resolution target when no names or aliases match (and come up
> with the corresponding syntax).
>
> Can this be compatible? If you add a new union syntax (e.g.,
> {"type":"union", "branches":[...], "default":...}) then existing
> implementations will not be able to read new data that uses this
> feature.
>
> Doug
>
--
Ryan Blue
Software Engineer
Netflix
