On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 07:17:34 -0400 Alex Hagerman <a...@unexpectedeof.net> wrote: > Notes from yesterdays sync call: > > Uwe suggested adding in checks for the C++ ABI to detect breaking > changes. Discussed adding this to a CI build job daily. > > Wes asked if certain C++ symbols could be marked experimental when > performing the C++ ABI checks. > > Uwe also mentioned the potential of using PIMPLs to hide pointers and > implementation to prevent future C++ ABI breakage. He mentioned Parquet > C++ has a similar setup.
Some questions: 1) are we ok with paying the cost of pimpls? (mostly the indirection cost I guess, and the fact that we can't have inline methods/accessors anymore) 2) how do we do for things like ArrayData, which seems publicly exposed by design? More generally, is it wise to focus on ABI compatibility even before a 1.0 is released? Regards Antoine.
