Thanks for the note! Sorry my calendar doesn’t pop up so I missed the sync.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 8:22 AM Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > 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. >
