Re: Debian package and development of CONS

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:05:09AM +0200, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> "H. S. Teoh" <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> > My point was that we can add backward compatibility later. But for
> > the initial effort, we want to get something off the ground that
> > works, so we shouldn't get bogged down by backward compatibility at
> > first. Of course, we should still leave room for backward
> > compatibility to be added once we got something working.
> >
> > My view is that backward compatibility isn't the foremost concern
> > here; the current Cons still works reasonably well for existing
> > scripts. People don't *have* to migrate until we got something that
> > works on top of SCons.
> 
> This strategy will make a transition from older cons to next cons more
> tricky. But given the shortage on people working on cons, you
> certainly have a point here.

To ease the transition, we could refrain from using existing function
names and calls unless they are identical. This way, backward
compatibility would just be a matter of translating old calls in terms of
new ones.

T

-- 
IBM = I Blame Microsoft

_______________________________________________
[email protected]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/cons-discuss
Cons URL: http://www.dsmit.com/cons/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/Te9BBgxOY7BxxAoRAmqyAJsHTAFQjVz9cWCO5XRa6CWcXaL2yQCfa/jD
JveU7dxsQcvG182w7yFpCKg=
=Akcf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----