On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Brian Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > Backwards-compatibility is guaranteed.
Does that include ABI compatibility? > Second, the AST is traversed and stability index is propagated downward to > any indexable node that isn't explicitly tagged. Should it be an error to use lower stability internally? > By default all nodes are *stable* - library authors have to opt-in to > stability index tracking. This may end up being the wrong default and we'll > want to revisit. Oh dear god no. `stable` should be *earned* over time, otherwise it's meaningless. The compiler should treat untagged code as `unstable`, `experimental` or a special `untagged` stability and accept that level by default. > For 1.0 we're mostly concerned with promoting large portions of std to stable Requesting permission to spam the issue tracker with minor annoyances we definitely don't want to live with forever. The C FFI <-> idiomatic Rust bridge is especially painful. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
