On Wed, 01 Jun 2016, Connor Lane Smith <c...@lubutu.com> wrote: > So the question is whether libutf is meant to deal only with UTF-8 > (which is constant), or other Unicode features too (which are > dynamic).
My point is, whenever possible, make the library user's life better. Frozen implementation? It'd be nice to have, but we're not living in a frozen world - if Unicode moves on, user's program will either have to follow (one way or another), or break, possibly resulting in security issues. A stable library interface is already great value. If all I need is to re-link and deploy, I'm happy. At $WORK, I build things other people use to build their things. It's not C libraries, but the story is quite similar. My thing's interface is stable, things that ran 3 years ago still run today - that's in a place where we build ca 100 new things a year. But the implementation details of my thing keep evolving. Yes, it's getting horribly complex, but that's because the problem domain is horribly complex. You can't brush it under the carpet, the complexity has to be handled at some point. But we're happy, because 10 other teams don't have to repeat my work. <3,K.