Keeping binary compatibility
thiago at kde.org
Tue Oct 5 07:55:51 BST 2010
On Tuesday 5. October 2010 03.20.52 Michael Pyne wrote:
> On Monday, October 04, 2010 17:55:30 Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > On Monday 04 of October 2010, George Kiagiadakis wrote:
> > > I think source compatibility is easier to maintain because it is more
> > > obvious when you break it and people generally understand it better
> > > than binary compatibility. I don't think we have a problem keeping
> > > source compatibility atm, do we?
> > We occassionally do (I e.g. remember fixing a bug somewhen in the past
> > that
> > had been introduced by broken source compatibility and people thinking 0
> > is a null pointer).
> Are you referring to 0 in C, or in C++? I ask only because 0 really *is*
> the C++ null pointer (or at least, the only way of convincing the C++
> compiler to use whatever the actual null pointer is), at least until
> C++0x's nullptr addition gets better supported.
0 is the C++ null pointer, but that doesn't mean it's a bitwise zero stored in
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
Senior Product Manager - Nokia, Qt Development Frameworks
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the kde-core-devel