On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was thinking that we can add on Version a DEFAULT version, which the > caller can set. So Version.setDefault and Version.getDefault will be added, > as static members (more on the static-ness of it later). We then change the > API which requires Version to also expose an API which doesn't require it, > and that API will call Version.getDefault(). People can use it if they want > to ... > I don't understand how this works... if Something has a no-arg ctor today, and i want to improve it in a backwards-compatible way, how will this work? the way this works today, lets say while working with 3.1 is: Something() is deprecated, and invokes Something(3.0) Something(Version) is added, and emulates the old behavior for < 3.1, and the new behavior for >= 3.1 i dont see how backwards compatibility will work with this proposal, since the no-arg ctor would then emulate some random behavior depending on a static. -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com
