Enums, bitfields and wl_arrays

[Daniel Stone]

Hi,

On 15 October 2015 at 09:18, Erik De Rijcke <derijcke.erik at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Auke Booij <auke at tulcod.com> wrote:
>> New values may be added (but not
>> changed or removed) to protocol specifications without introducing any
>> compatibility issues.
>
> This is not clear for me. Compatibility issues for the current C bindings or
> for all language bindings? If it's for all language bindings than this might
> introduce a whole explosion of derived implicit specifications for each
> language. Eg. the enum order in Java. Better would be to specify a goal "no
> compatibility issues" and a set of form specifications eg. "the order of an
> enum shall not be changed".

Yes, agreed. That's the only tractable way: the definition of a closed
enum requires strictly linear append-only additions. Next topic. :)

Cheers,
Daniel