On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Ludovic Courtès > <ludovic.cour...@inria.fr> wrote: > >> What about sticking to the current “API” instead, and explicitly marking >> as internal those parts that core developers know are still in flux? > > A guarantee of perpetual discussions of the same topic, over and over. > (meh, GCC-x.y.z just broke my plugins; this is unacceptable, blah blah bah.)
Yeah. Btw, the alternative to a stable plugin API is embedded support of a scripting language (python, guile, etc.). That's of course just another supposed-to-be stable "plugin API". Both are sufficient for introspection and instrumentation tasks (a good test if the API is powerful enough is to implement mudflap with it). Richard.
