Julian Foad wrote:
> Stefan Kueng wrote:
> > but then that would mean I wouldn't get any compiler
> > error if I actually use a private and not just an experimental API.
>
> That's part of the point -- [...]
> there's no real practical difference between "private" and
> "experimental". See my no
Stefan Kueng wrote:
> On 9/20/2018 5:17 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> We should just pull the experimental APIs from the public API space (moving
>> them into the private API space) and get on with the release.
>
> But if they're in the private space, other clients can not use them.
> Sure, I could a
On 9/20/2018 5:17 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
A fresh perspective on the experimental-APIs issue just came to me: this should
not hold up the 1.11 release. We were falling into the old trap of thrashing
about debating how to do it, assuming we needed some solution for 1.11, but we
don't. One of
A fresh perspective on the experimental-APIs issue just came to me: this should
not hold up the 1.11 release. We were falling into the old trap of thrashing
about debating how to do it, assuming we needed some solution for 1.11, but we
don't. One of the rules of time-based releases: something th
4 matches
Mail list logo
