Notes on implementing concise calls to constructors with type parameters
Alex.Buckley at Sun.COM
Fri May 15 10:12:56 PDT 2009
Rémi Forax wrote:
>> Is it conceivable to drop raw types and hence migration compatibility?
>> Sure. Is it an upgrade in behavior? Let's ask people still on 1.4
>> who use raw types. They may have something to say about the increased
>> costs you'd impose on them when they try to upgrade their codebase.
> First we talk about source compatibility, not binary one.
I'm not sure why you're bringing in binary compatibility. Someone on 1.4
(yes, or 1.3.1, very good) who wants to migrate to 1.7 for source
feature X will be displeased to discover they can only get as far as
-source 1.6 because Remi cut an infinite number of raw types out of 1.7.
> Third, Are you one of the guys that decide that if you want to use module
> you need to change the layout of the directories of the sources ?
FUD. You don't NEED to change the layout. There is a particular scenario
involving simultaneous compilation of multiple source modules that
cannot reasonably be achieved without a new layout. But it's off-topic.
More information about the coin-dev