On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 16:32 -0800, Vern Paxson wrote:
> event foo%(a: string%)
> event foo%(a: string, b: string%);
I like this. It addresses my main concern of making it clear what's
happening. If I see an implementation of the event and look up the
prototype, I'll find both
> > (4) avoid certain forms of user errors
>
> Which particular user errors were a concern?
The main one being when there's an API change that's *not* backward
compatible, and the user doesn't update their scripts to be in conformance
with it as is required. Clearly something we'll in general
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 6:46 PM Vern Paxson wrote:
> Suppose "event foo(a: string)" is an event to which we want to add
> a second parameter, b: string. We could express this in event.bif as:
>
> event foo%(a: string%)
> event foo%(a: string, b: string%);
Nice idea. I also
