On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Julian Foad wrote:
> Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Julian Foad wrote:
> >
> >> 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 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"?
>
> Yes, that's what I meant.
>
Is that really something we need to care about? If you link against 1.4.17
and then, at runtime, use 1.3.4, could you expect that to work, then? I
don't think we leave such guarantees.
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 21:31:41 2006