Hi, On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 01:54:50AM -0800, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 07:35:04PM +0100, Victor Toso wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 09:29:28AM -0800, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > > Additionally, this would allow client code that *looks* at the > > > union to keep working even if actual data is later added to the > > > branch; client code that *creates* the union would need to be > > > updated, of course, but that would be the case regardless. > > > > I think it is better to not have code that is working to keep > > working in this case where Spice is implemented. > > > > Implementing Spice here would mean that a struct type > > SetPasswordOptionsSpice was created but because the code handling > > it before was using struct type Empty, it will not handle the new > > struct, leading to possible runtime errors (e.g: not handling > > username/password) > > > > A bool would be simpler, triggering compile time errors. > > You've convinced me :) Let's leave it like this for now. Once > we start seriously thinking about compatibility across versions > then we might have to reconsider this, but it's going to be > part of a much bigger, much more fun conversation ;)
Yes! I'm looking forward to a 'unstable' version where we can agree on building things on top. Thanks, Victor
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
