[Vm-dev] Re: FFI syntax

[Igor Stasenko]

On 25 March 2011 09:15, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> On 3/25/2011 7:18, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Andreas Raab wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 3/24/2011 19:35, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it the best time to migrate the syntax of FFI calls to Pragmas? I
>>>> know it takes some time to implement the pragma support, but IIRC Lukas did
>>>> that a few years ago, so dusting it off and adding support for threaded
>>>> calls (which I didn't see yet) shouldn't be that hard.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but that's a decidedly bad idea. It breaks each and every use of
>>> the FFI out there. The FFI syntax and support is what it is, so please leave
>>> it alone. If you want to implement something different, then implement
>>> something different and do it in a form that doesn't conflict with the FFI
>>> so that both can live side by side.
>>
>> That's the idea:
>> "Both formats could be supported for a while, then we could leave the
>> current format behind and simplify the parsers/compilers, etc."
>>
>> Even tools can be built to convert from one syntax to the other.
>
> Glad to hear it. I hate the attitude that the only way to make progress is
> to break all code in existence. It's a lame and lazy attitude, unworthy of
> engineers who understand what they're doing.
>

Actually a discussion was around how new FFI syntax should look like.
I am all for providing a migration path for old syntax.
But it is obvious that we don't need two different implementations of one thing,
so eventually we have to leave only one.

> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
>>
>>
>> Levente
>>


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.