Simon Thum simon.thum at
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 
cairo's A[BP]I)

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,
As above.

(Sorry, I couldn't help but feeding the troll)

More information about the xorg mailing list