| 1 |
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:46:49AM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> | > The existing syntax is just as extensible. Up the EABI revision, and |
| 3 |
> | > start adding new syntax as needed. |
| 4 |
> | |
| 5 |
> | EAPI has nothing to do with the consistency of the syntax. Getting it |
| 6 |
> | once right, is what you usually call for. I prefer clean data |
| 7 |
> | structures. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The proposed syntax is cleaner than shoving arbitrary stuff inside |
| 10 |
> [bleh]. Any new [role:] tags will require an EABI bump anyway, so |
| 11 |
> there's no reason to stick to your proposed syntax to avoid future |
| 12 |
> backwards compatibility breaks. |
| 13 |
Expanding a bit... |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Via eapi, if we wanted to throw out the syntax down the line we could. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Not saying it's a great idea, but EAPI exists to provide immediate |
| 18 |
transition to incompatible changes instead of the usual "work out a |
| 19 |
semi backwards compatible way, don't use it for 6 months, then deal |
| 20 |
with the bugs". |
| 21 |
~harring |
Archives