----- Original Message -----
> From: "Niko Matsakis" <n...@alum.mit.edu>
> To: "Brian Anderson" <bander...@mozilla.com>
> Cc: rust-dev@mozilla.org
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 8:47:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [rust-dev] runtime libraries and stage1
> Your point about std/core is well taken and basically convinces me
> that
> my idea is not good. It would definitely still be nice if there were a
> way to "quarantine" the original runtime, but perhaps just preserving
> the old definitions for a time is the best we can do.
Something you said on IRC made me realize that the absolute hardest changes to
make are to structures shared by the compiler and the runtime - so much so that
we often just leave unused fields. That situation would be improved by your
proposal.
>
> If nothing else, we could make this a bit more automatic by having the
> runtime functions "namespaced" with some sort of prefix, like "rust4_"
> or what have you. Then when we make backwards incompatible changes, we
> literally copy the entire runtime into a new subdirectory with a new
> prefix ("rust5_"). We make changes liberally to rust5_ and delete
> rust4_ once the new snapshot is in place. (In the compiler this prefix
> would be automatically added, of course)
As a bonus, implementing this would provide an opportunity to clean up the
inconsistent runtime interface.
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
