David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, I'm suggesting this more for a new version of TAP.
>>
>> It won't work because it's not backwards compatible.
>
> I care less and less about backwards compatibility every day. Also,
> chromatic.
There is Perl 5 style backwards compatibility where you never, ever break
anything for years and years and years and even for code that you're not sure
even exists. That's what chromatic is on about.
And then there's backwards compatibility where you try not to clearly break
everyone's well-written code!
I think that second one has value.
That said, just a couple days ago I sent along a proposal to the TAP list to
change the way the TAP version works to allow incompatible changes to the
protocol. Then we can work on sub-plans without having to bend over backwards
to compatibility.
PS The signature choice was entirely random. Eerie.
--
The past has a vote, but not a veto.
-- Mordecai M. Kaplan
