Hi, Pete Batard wrote: > IMO, a v2 should be reserved for "oh yeah, we designed the _whole_ > thing very wrong,
Probably i never really expressed my emotions towards that name member of variable size at the end of the struct. "Very wrong" is much too feeble. > But if you're really addressing a single issue, The issue is that the interface iso9660_stat_t cannot be enhanced without breaking the ABI each time. > So I am against going through an over-design for purely academical problems, That's exactly the point to decide. What is the importance of ABI stability in libcdio ? In most dynamic libraries it is a big issue. > Furthermore, I very much think we want to nudge developers into caring for > extents in their code, which isn't going to happen if they can simply > compile with latest libcdio and not see anything changed. What if an application is poorly maintained but still in use. Hoping for a qualified developer to adapt to new API demands might be too optimistic. Have a nice day :) Thomas
