On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 10:51 AM Seth Hall <s...@corelight.com> wrote:
> One thing I've been thinking about a little bit is how much we're > concerning ourselves with maintaining perfect backward compatibility and > if there is some benefit to breaking a bit of backward compatibility for > something truly nicer? Sure, I wouldn't argue against taking that approach if there's a good suggestion. > Like, should we have some specialized syntax for > specifying named parameter use? Should we have something like anonymous > records where you specify a variant of record syntax for named > parameters? I think a user would prefer to always do whatever is most robust and won't break in the face of upstream changes. If I'm going to use the alternative syntax everywhere because it's better, why have an alternative in the first place. - Jon _______________________________________________ zeek-dev mailing list zeek-dev@zeek.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/zeek-dev
