At 12:55 AM -0700 10/25/99, Linke, Andreas Dr. wrote:
>Once again my plea: Please don't take source code compatibility lightly.
We don't. There are several million lines of source we have to maintain as
well.
Our thinking here is: if you want to maintain 3.0/1/2/3 compatibility, use
the 3.0/1/2/3 header files. Then your sources don't change at all.
If you're taking advantage of 3.5 features, then you're modifying your
sources anyway, so you may as well clean them up at the same time.
The compatibility header is intended only to allow you to quickly get
ported over and add in the new features. We hope you take the time to make
the conversion, because of the improved type checking, readability and
maintainability it offers.
--Bob
- PalmOS API change (Was: Re: VoidHand vs. Handle) Andreas Linke
- Re: PalmOS API change (Was: Re: VoidHand vs. Handl... David Fedor
- Re: PalmOS API change (Was: Re: VoidHand vs. Handl... John Marshall
- RE: PalmOS API change (Was: Re: VoidHand vs. Handl... Richard Hartman
- RE: PalmOS API change (Was: Re: VoidHand vs. Handl... Bob Ebert
- RE: PalmOS API change (Was: Re: VoidHand vs. Handl... Linke, Andreas Dr.
- RE: PalmOS API change (Was: Re: VoidHand vs. Handl... Aaron Ardiri
- Re: PalmOS API change (Was: Re: VoidHand vs. Handl... Bob Ebert
- Re: PalmOS API change (Was: Re: VoidHand vs. Handl... John Marshall
- Re: PalmOS API change (Was: Re: VoidHand vs. Handl... Scott Johnson
- RE: PalmOS API change (Was: Re: VoidHand vs. Handl... Linke, Andreas Dr.
- RE: PalmOS API change (Was: Re: VoidHand vs. Handl... Richard Hartman
- RE: PalmOS API change (Was: Re: VoidHand vs. Handl... Bob Ebert
- RE: PalmOS API change (Was: Re: VoidHand vs. Handl... Richard Hartman
