the Hopwood design process
Tue Mar 14 15:22:52 CET 2006
--- chandru <>
> On 14/03/06, Thomas Lindgren
> <> wrote:
> > Anyway, let me add two things to the new features
> > discussion.
> > First, pragmatically speaking, it might be useful
> > release some features as "experimental", with the
> > explicit proviso that they can be modified or
> > even removed in the future, until classified as
> > "stable". This allows for community feedback
> > locking into a given design beforehand.
> This is quite easily done when new libraries are
> being introduced
> which do not need any special support from the
> runtime system. But
> when you are talking about a new language feature
> such as this I guess
> it becomes very hard because you've got to change
> the compiler, beam,
> debugger and heavens knows what else - all in one
> go. To do that in a
> non commital way can be very hard?
Well, all it means is that OTP reserves the right to
change how an "experimental" feature works (in
particular semantics, which I guess is the sticky
part). Backwards compatibility not guaranteed. So,
it's more of an organizational/social/community issue
than an implementation/coding thing. Does that make
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the erlang-questions