From: Andreas K. <and...@ac...> - 2012-11-20 18:15:30
|
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Porter, Don <don...@ni...> wrote: > >> Discussions around Tcl_Obj changes probably also impact on the >> DGP/Nitjmans conversation on whether extensions built against 8.6 can >> load into 9.0. > > Wiser heads on the tkchat have led me to the rebuttable, but pretty > firm conclusion that the answer is "No, we should not support that." Fully agreed, see also my just submitted comment on that in the bug report itself. (Not that I consider myself a wiser head, and I likely skipped over the chat discussion this morning) > (Imagine such support were in place and the extension called Tcl_Eval(). > Should that script evaluation treat 08 as octal or decimal? Any answer > lays bare the absurdity of asking an interp to be Tcl 8 and Tcl 9 at the > same time) > > Instead the transitional compatibility that should be sought is > source compatibility. Aim for supporting an extension with one > set of source code that when compiled against Tcl 8 headers and > inked to Tcl 8 stubs libs produces a binary that [load]s in Tcl 8 interps, > and the same source code when compiled against Tcl 9 headers and > linked to Tcl 9 stubs libs produces a binary that [load]s in Tcl 9 interps. Yes, exactly. That is supportable and sensible. -- Andreas Kupries Senior Tcl Developer Code to Cloud: Smarter, Safer, Faster™ P: 778.786.1122 F: 778.786.1133 and...@ac... http://www.activestate.com Learn about Stackato for Private PaaS: http://www.activestate.com/stackato Tcl'2013, Sep 23-27, New Orleans, LA, USA. |