Ben Hyde wrote:
>
> Again this is a hypothetical future inconvenience cost
> compaired with a assured immediate high cost.
One is associated with design, and one with evolution.
> Denotational clarity is a good thing. I've no problem with
> buying it whenever change is forced by unavoidable reasons.
Ah, so don't design it that way, just fix it when it becomes
unavoidable.
> Are we going to make any attempt to to screw the module authors.
I assume you meant "not to" as opposed to "to to". Module
authors can tutu themselves without any assistance from me. :-)
Seriously..
Yes, I think attempts and efforts are going to be made.
Do you think it's a good idea to have a functionally
named routine keep the name even though the semantics have
changed between different versions of the API?
> > *shrug*
>
> Disinterest in the suffering of others is enivitable if there
> is nothing one can do about it.
You misunderstand my *shrug*. It did not denote disinterest,
but acknowledgment that the issue is a moot one.
> In a sense I'm pressing this issue because I think there is a
> questionable disinterest developing for the migration of the
> installed base.
And I'm resisting because it strikes me as potentially misplaced
conservatism. I'm willing to be convinced, but I haven't
seen an argument yet that does the trick.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/ASFD/>
|