simon.thum at gmx.de
Thu Apr 9 12:16:44 PDT 2009
>>>> This cannot be deduced from that line. You need to review your math.
>> On Wednesday 08 April 2009 22:52:12 Thomas Dickey wrote:
>>> Behdad's comment doesn't make sense in English.
>>> (Perhaps someone can help Behdad with that - or else explain to him
>>> what "API-stable" might mean).
>> It makes perfect sense. He's saying that (f(A) ⊢ g(B)) ⊬ (¬f(A) ⊢
>> ¬g(B)), where
> He might have. His response doesn't contain any useful information.
> In the context of the remark that I was curious about, I'd have
> understood "API-stable" to mean that no further changes will be made in
> the API which would require recompilation. Regarding the
Seriously, talking about API-stable by understanding it to mean
ABI-stable (which is stronger) is at best misleading. Xorg is one of the
few projects where this distinction is actually made. (Yeah, that's
This obviously is a technical list. It's neither Oxford nor a linguistic
list. You're confusing technical concepts but require obviously
non-native speakers to be 101% correct IN LANGUAGE?
Now that's gross! I don't know behdad but I'm certain this isn't how he
should be treated just because your points are moot.
> latest-releases tie-in on the web-page, that's problematic since it's
> only the portion of the API which has been unchanging for an extended
> period of time that would be (in the normal sense of the word) "stable".
I guess one keeps something stable exactly because it wasn't at some
point. I'd even call that normal. Future isn't a simple deduction of the
> I suppose that someone with time to spare could compare the successive
> releases of cairo and measure the fraction of the API which is actually
> stable. (If there's some evidence of this in the source code itself,
(Sorry, I couldn't help but feeding the troll)
More information about the xorg