Darin Fisher wrote: > right, one of the nice things about a flags-type attribute is that it is > easily expandable without breaking binary compatibility. and, so > provided the existing contract of the existing interface is not broken > (ie. provided the meaning of the existing flags doesn't change) then > everything should be okay. i agree with bbaetz: implementors must take > care to only check the bits they know/care about. flags-type attributes > give us some flexibility moving forward without paying the penalty of > extra QI's in our code. >
Binary compatibility isn't the only thing we have to worry about here, guys. There's this contract thing. --Chris -- ------------ Christopher Blizzard http://people.redhat.com/blizzard/ Mozilla.org - we're on a mission from God. Still. ------------
