[Cabal] Contract change

[Ethan Blanton]

Sean Egan spake unto us the following wisdom:
> So, is the majority in favor of changing namespaces, then?
> 
> Seems like Ethan and I are against it, while Richard, Luke, Stu, Etan,
> and Mark are for it?

I told rlaager I would send this, so let me just lay out my reasoning
for not wanting to change namespaces.

I don't want to change our namespace for the same reason I oppose
virtually all frivolous changes; it has no real *technical* benefit
that I see, and it will incur a cost both to us and to 3rd party
plugin writers.  At the very least, we should endeavor to provide a
compatibility header for the functions and symbols which exist at the
time of the changeover.  If we do so, we should *not* add new symbols
to it in the future, but we should maintain it (and remove those
symbols which disappear, etc.) for some time; perhaps until 3.0 or
4.0, depending on the time frames involved.  We should announce this
at release time.

All said, if we do change namespaces, I'm not going to sit at home and
cry into my cheerios.  We have made more painful and ill-advised
frivolous changes in the past, and survived.  ;-)

Ethan

-- 
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy
for evils].  They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor
determined to commit crimes.
		-- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/private/cabal/attachments/20061109/a7ad59aa/attachment.pgp