>>>> This cannot be deduced from that line. You need to review your math. >> >> On Wednesday 08 April 2009 22:52:12 Thomas Dickey wrote: >> >>> Behdad's comment doesn't make sense in English. >>> >>> (Perhaps someone can help Behdad with that - or else explain to him >>> what "API-stable" might mean). >> >> It makes perfect sense. He's saying that (f(A) ⊢ g(B)) ⊬ (¬f(A) ⊢ >> ¬g(B)), where [...] > 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 Seriously, talking about API-stable by understanding it to mean ABI-stable (which is stronger) is at best misleading. Xorg is one of the few projects where this distinction is actually made. (Yeah, that's cairo's A[BP]I)
This obviously is a technical list. It's neither Oxford nor a linguistic list. You're confusing technical concepts but require obviously non-native speakers to be 101% correct IN LANGUAGE? Now that's gross! I don't know behdad but I'm certain this isn't how he should be treated just because your points are moot. > 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 guess one keeps something stable exactly because it wasn't at some point. I'd even call that normal. Future isn't a simple deduction of the past. > 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, As above. (Sorry, I couldn't help but feeding the troll) _______________________________________________ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
