Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> Generally, I think Andres is wrong to argue that immutability
> shouldn't mean *anything* across major versions. If we can readily
> foresee that something is going to change in the future, then we
> shouldn't mark it immutable. However:
This sounds like we're in agreement then.
I'll admit that I was responding to multiple comments up-thread in my
response to Kyotaro-san and that it wasn't all intended against the
specific comments brought up there, so, my apologies to Kyotaro-san for
that. I should have been clearer as to what I was referring to. By and
large I had viewed it as a furtherance of Andres' position, which was a
mistake on my part.
> In short, I don't see that there has been any big problem here in the
> past, and I don't see anyone making a proposal that would cause a big
> problem in the future. There is some mild disagreement about certain
> hypothetical situations and corner cases.
I don't believe there's been any big problem here in the past and my
concern was what you mention also disagreeing with above- the idea that
immutability shouldn't mean *anything* across major versions. While I
definitely agree that we should be looking at things on an individual
case basis, the implication that we don't need to worry about
immutability across major versions definitely had me concerned. I'll
grant that Andres' comments were likely more in passing and not intended
as a proposal, and perhaps should have been glossed over until and
unless an actual proposal or change was put forward.
Thanks!
Stephen