I think that Luc was referring to non-backwards compatible changes. Adding methods should not be in this category, but removing them would be.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com> wrote: > Question about this: if RealVector is locked as an interface - no changes > until > 3.0 - and the Matrix and Vector interfaces have method signatures which > take > RealVector as an argument, how is adding new methods to an implementation > of RealVector (say AbstractRealVector) going to help anyone? > -- Ted Dunning, CTO DeepDyve
