On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Julian Foad wrote:
> Well, here's a patch, but...
>
> I'm not sure that the argument applies to this structure which is used
> only to return the result from this one function. If we revise the
> function, we can't keep the same signature because although it will be
> compatible one way ("backward-compatible") it won't be the other way.
> I'm not quite sure, but I think the benefit of an extensible structure
> only arises when it is used in multiple interfaces.
>
I don't understand the above. If we forbid users to allocate this struct,
we can freely add fields in the future without problems. Or do you mean
that we have a rule that if you compile with library x+1, and it links
with lbirary x, it should work? Is that what you mean by "forward
compatibility"?
Thanks,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 2 20:57:47 2006