* Backward compatibility
@ 2003-09-06 9:33 Dirk Herrmann
2003-09-07 1:27 ` Rob Browning
2003-09-07 22:41 ` Marius Vollmer
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Dirk Herrmann @ 2003-09-06 9:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hello together,
I would like to remove the SCM_IM_ definitions from the public
interface. Also, the definition of ilocs should not be public. These
definitions should only be used as an internal interface, for example
between memoization and execution. To make this possible and to clean up
certain issues, I have some ideas about changing the type codes of
immediates.
This, however, would influence the backwards compatibility. Later code
would remain source code compatible, but not binary compatible. That is,
the code would need to be recompiled.
I realize that you, Marius, have put a lot of effort to make guile
backwards compatible. Do you intend to make it binary backwards
compatible, or is it sufficient for you if Guile was sourcecode
backwards compatible?
Best regards
Dirk
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Backward compatibility
2003-09-06 9:33 Backward compatibility Dirk Herrmann
@ 2003-09-07 1:27 ` Rob Browning
2003-09-07 22:41 ` Marius Vollmer
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Rob Browning @ 2003-09-07 1:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: Guile-Devel Mailing List
Dirk Herrmann <dirk@dirk-herrmanns-seiten.de> writes:
> I realize that you, Marius, have put a lot of effort to make guile
> backwards compatible. Do you intend to make it binary backwards
> compatible, or is it sufficient for you if Guile was sourcecode
> backwards compatible?
We should be bumping the major sonames with the next release anyway,
and that should avoid breaking any existing apps on install (i.e. we
can coexist with the old version). I suspect that's probably
sufficient.
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Backward compatibility
2003-09-06 9:33 Backward compatibility Dirk Herrmann
2003-09-07 1:27 ` Rob Browning
@ 2003-09-07 22:41 ` Marius Vollmer
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Marius Vollmer @ 2003-09-07 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: Guile-Devel Mailing List
Dirk Herrmann <dirk@dirk-herrmanns-seiten.de> writes:
> I realize that you, Marius, have put a lot of effort to make guile
> backwards compatible. Do you intend to make it binary backwards
> compatible, or is it sufficient for you if Guile was sourcecode
> backwards compatible?
We should not break binary compatibility gratuitously, when there is
no good reason. But in general, source code compatibility is good
enough in HEAD.
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-09-07 22:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-09-06 9:33 Backward compatibility Dirk Herrmann
2003-09-07 1:27 ` Rob Browning
2003-09-07 22:41 ` Marius Vollmer
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).