Hi all, Manuel wrote:
As I have argued before on the committee list, I also think we should *not* worry about backwards incompatible changes too much in cases where a simple automatic translation from H98 to H' code is possible.
Yes, tools can and should help with migration, and we should keep that in mind. In particular, complicated language design to incorporate new features while maintaining backwards compatibility should be avoided where old code and new code easily can be made to work together through a compiler compatibility flag. (The discussion on records/labelled fields spring to mind.) However, I still think it is important to be conservative when it comes to breaking changes and either only consider them when the impact really would be very small, or when it is agreed it is a really important change. Even if there are tools to help with code, effort is still involved to fix the breaks, and thus it ought to be completely clear that the effort is worth it. And there is not only code: there are papers and books too! And finally, unless we're fairly strict, we'll be bogged down in a flood of discussion on gratuitous and ultimately rather superficial changes. The associativity of "$" is a case in point. So, the criteria I proposed still seem quite reasonable to me. But I'm biased, of course! :-) /Henrik -- Henrik Nilsson School of Computer Science The University of Nottingham nhn@cs.nott.ac.uk This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.