27 Nov
2009
27 Nov
'09
1:29 p.m.
Thomas Lotze wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Are people okay with the proposed semantics?
I am.
Would people be okay with such an upgrade path? Any better ideas?
I'm not comfortable with the idea of an automatic fall-back for IFoo(x, y) but maybe that changes after thinking about it some more.
I'm not comfortable with it either. I was just thinking out loud on that. My question should've been formulated more clearly. I mean an upgrade path where 3.x and 4.x are maintained in parallel and people can do an incremental upgrade in 3.x.
Most importantly, any volunteers?
I'd like to work on this.
Great! Regards, Martijn