On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 06:14:21AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, Bill Crawford wrote: >> It makes perfect sense. He's saying that (f(A) ⊢ g(B)) ⊬ (¬f(A) ⊢ ¬g(B)), >> where >> A is "release", f is "latest", B is "API" and g is "stable" ;o) >> >> The point is not that it has to be the "latest" release to be "stable", the >> point is that it needs to be an actual release, because between those, they >> might experiment with things and change them before release, and you don't >> want >> to depend on any temporary change that might be withdrawn rapidly. Over the >> longer term, sure, things get deprecated, but it's to be hoped that over >> quite >> a long period of time. >> >> At least, I *think* that's what he said. > > He might have. His response doesn't contain any useful information. > > In the context of the remark that I was curious about, I'd have > understood "API-stable" to mean that no further changes will be made in > the API which would require recompilation. Regarding the latest-releases > tie-in on the web-page, that's problematic since it's only the portion of > the API which has been unchanging for an extended period of time that > would be (in the normal sense of the word) "stable". > > I suppose that someone with time to spare could compare the successive > releases of cairo and measure the fraction of the API which is actually > stable. (If there's some evidence of this in the source code itself, > we might want to discuss that).
If you do, be sure to discuss it on Cairo mailing lists, if anywhere at all; certainly not xorg@ in any case. HTH, HAND.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg