Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2003
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:29:52 +0000, Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison@sun.com> wrote: >Jan Dubois wrote: > >> I'm surprised that you are worried about breaking binary compatibility in >> the future given how cavalier you are about breaking it right now. Is it >> just because breaking it now doesn't affect yourself? :) > >I care about breaking binary compatibility, I'm just less than convinced Ok, thanks for the clarification! >that in this case it can be entirely avoided, and if it can't be entirely >avoided I'd prefer 100% breakage instead of random nasty surprises. Even if >the various fixes *appear* to work I'd not be prepared to trust them myself >anyway, I'd recompile. I think Nick's new hashing code is binary compatible with both 5.8.0 and 5.8.1. In this case I don't see a reason for breaking it in the future. Just handwaving "it only *appears* to work" seems a little insulting to Nick's hard work, unless you can explain where you expect it to fail. The part where binary compatibility with 5.8.0 cannot be restored without breaking compatibility with 5.8.1 is the REENTR structure layout. >I care about it in general because if binary compatibility is broke I have >to ship two versions of perl, and that is more more aggro for me. I totally understand. That's why it is important to keep compatibility for those who are already using 5.8.0. :) Cheers, -JanThread Previous | Thread Next