Re: [Tcllib-devel] Tcl 8.2 support

[Jeff H. <je...@ac...>]

Lars Hellström wrote:
> This is an old thread, and an issue probably already settled, but it 
> just occurred to me that the main argument for the strict interpretation 
> is flawed, or requires changes also elsewhere.
> 
> On 2008-05-25, Jeff Hobbs wrote:
>> Lars Hellström wrote:
>>> I can understand a policy of "don't make any changes to patches, or 
>>> otherwise restrain your coding style, just for the sake of preserving 
>>> compatibility with Tcl 8.x if x<4". I can also understand not wanting 
>>> to entertain old Tcl versions just for the sake of testing tcllib 
>>> releases, in the hope that someone, somewhere might appreciate it.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, denying the actual compatibility level of a piece 
>>> of software feels rather artificial.
>>>
>>> Is the catch the uncertainty factor: that one can _presume_ a package 
>>> works with Tcl 8.2 based on the features it uses, but won't really 
>>> _know_ whether this is the case until having tested it on an actual 
>>> Tcl 8.2 interpreter?
>>
>> This is the primary reason.  Unless someone else is secretly doing it, 
>> tcllib hasn't been tested against anything below 8.4 in a long time.
> 
> This seems reasonable as long as one considers only the Tcl version, but 
> in this context Tcl is just a package on which there is some dependence; 
> one package among many. Hence if this "we can only have [package 
> require] for versions actively tested" principle is to be taken 
> seriously, then it should be applied also for all other packages, should 
> it not?
	...
> The conditional use of C extension packages (such as Trf) complicates 
> the matter further, because making use of these then requires running 
	...
> Conclusion: I doubt we have ever conducted tests at the level of rigor 
> that this principle aims for.

While true, it does not invalidate the previous point.  Also, the 
inter-library package issues are a less-key subclass than the feature 
set assumptions of the core.

Jeff