On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 17:19:46 -0500, Peter Relson wrote: > >>Adding a new interface while retaining the old one. > >That is not a choice that helps the preponderance of cases that exist >today. Changing to use a new interface is precisely what contributes to >the potentially large number of lines of code to be changed. And changing >to do something useful when "full" is costlier still. That is why I did >not list it as a choice. > If the facility were to be provided by a lexical extension to symbol names (as you imagined), no existing code could exploit it. It would effectively be a new interface; there should be no further compatibility constraint.
-- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
