On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 13:50:42 +0100 Auke Booij <a...@tulcod.com> wrote:
> Maybe a solution can be found in more languages, and we can make the > compatibility, that e.g. Pekka is looking for, a requirement for > bindings, rather than make compatibility a requirement for the > protocol writers. So something along these lines would be in the > specification: > > [start] > The enum and bitfield attributes are in principle for documentation > purposes only. The enum and bitfield attributes may also be used by > bindings, but only in such a way that code written prior to the > specification of these attributes still works after their > specification. In other words, specifying an attribute for an > argument, that previously did not have it, should not break API. > [end] > > Obviously C is not rich enough to do this in an elegant way. (Maybe > it's possible in C++ with some template magic?) But it definitely > solves the "backwards compatibility" debate, since, while anyone is > free to ignore this bit in the specification, solutions might > sometimes be possible, and it guards the entire C world from issues in > the non-C bindings. Hi Auke, I like this very much. Let's see if anyone disagrees. Do you intend to allow also changing rather than only adding these new attributes in the wording above? I read it as no, and I suppose that's good. We'd have that anyway. The "do not use this or you get to keep all pieces" wording I used was perhaps too liberal. Thanks, pq
pgpE58KqXWES1.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
