l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> skribis: > >> I am not so sure about about this one. I think it's not accurate to >> characterize beginning to replace a 25-year-old C API (SMOBs) as >> "churn". > > I think the point is that there’s lots of code out there that rely on > SMOBs and we shouldn’t break it overnight, precisely because that API > is this old. > > Of course, I agree that pushing users towards an improved API is the > right thing long term, no argument here.
Shrug. LilyPond has all of its SMOB usage condensed into few C++ classes, so it is comparatively easy to migrate to a different API as long as it offers comparable functionality. Which it doesn't (namely the ability of marking objects reached through STL-managed data structures). So it's pretty pointless to "push users towards an improved API" and hardly "the right thing". -- David Kastrup
