On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 09:54 +0200, Mathias Bauer wrote: > Kohei Yoshida wrote: > > > On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 15:38 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > >> Kohei Yoshida wrote: > > > >> > Since the size of the TableFilterFiled as well as the data members and > >> > their order will not change before and after the change, I would think > >> > it's safe to make this change, but is it not safe? > >> > > >> > I appreciate your input. > >> > >> Your reasoning might be valid for C++, but remember that there are more > >> language bindings for UNO. > > > > Thanks for your input. But I would still think that C++ is probably the > > pickest of all the languages UNO has bindings for, especially when it > > comes to ABI compatibility. In other words, the other languages are > > probably more relaxed about the change I was considering above. > > I think the basic idea of UNO's compatibility concept is to plan for > future language bindings. You never can say anything about the "other > languages" as by principle this is an open list. You can only say > something about the *currently existing* language bindings *you know*.
Your point is certainly true and there is no argument about that; however, if we don't have UNO binding for, say, Ruby, *today*, then we won't have to worry about backward compatibility with existing Ruby UNO components, will we? :-) Because there is none. Anyway, I can now see how uncomfortable you guys are with the change I was considering, so I'll stop pushing for it. Kohei --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
