On Dec 21, 2007 9:50 AM, Alessandro Zummo <azummo-lists at towertech.it> wrote: > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:47:13 -0500 > "m. allan noah" <kitno455 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 21 > > > I do not like changing every backend. but if we can change little > > > in dll/"real" 1.1 backends that would be fine. > > > > > > > if the dll backend had no mechanism to determine existence of the call > > beforehand, i assume it would segfault. besides, this assumes that all > > callers will link against the dll backend exclusively- every backend > > exports the same interface, so that frontends can link against them > > directly. i would not want to break that. > > mm think I had missed this. > > > so- if we want to protect front-ends from the updated backends- the > > only mechanism we have is a well-known option. instead of a boolean, > > how about a string list- then a backend can report what versions of > > the standard it supports, and the frontend or user can chose. > > I guess that would work! :) >
actually- this idea is growing on me. it prevents the need to fork sane and do a separate 1.1 branch- we can require that the new frame types be protected by '--standard=1.1', and that well-known option can have a warning, and front-ends that dont support certain minor versions of the standard can hide them, and front-ends that do can enable them by default. no bump in the SONAME keeps external backends happy. there must be some downsides, however- opinions? allan -- "The truth is an offense, but not a sin"
