On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:43 PM, Adam Kennedy wrote:
On 27/11/2007, Ken Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/25/07, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What you are suggesting is a NEW approach that has, as part of
the design,
> the explicit intent to break compatibility.
I'm not sure how else to say this, but there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in
what I've proposed that would break backwards compatibility. I'm
saying this SO EMPHATICALLY because it's the WHOLE POINT of the
proposal.
You are, however, ABSOLUTELY going to break forwards
compatibility. You were right, I did mean forwards.
And this is just as bad.
Let's look at the alternatives then.
We're adding new stuff to META that old-spec consumers won't
understand. The two alternatives are to put it somewhere where they
won't see it and thus will silently ignore it, or to put it somewhere
where they'll choke on it. Since we're talking about "requirements",
and not "the author's favorite color", I suggest it's better to
Otherwise, see the last paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
INTERCAL_programming_language .
Also, breaking forwards compatibility is most certainly NOT just as
bad - the whole principle of "minimum version number" requirements
for anything, for instance, is built upon it. And there's a special
word for a system that never breaks forward nor backward
compatibility: static. That's just one step away from dead.
-Ken
