Re: [AD] to prefix or not to prefix (sigh)

[Sven Sandberg <svsa1977@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Martijn Versteegh wrote:
> >This is IMHO the best proposal so far, except: why do we need this
> >two-step thing (first prefix, then add more API-breaking stuff)? 
[snip]
> >
> I strongly disagree here. The prefixing is a large project, it will
> take some time to iron out all the inconveniences.

I think it will be a fairly automatic process: adding `al_' to the
beginning of each name can hardly give any errors that the compiler does
not complain about. Of course it will be a bit tedious, but I don't
think it will be difficult. Also, I think Laurence already has a tool
that does most of the work.

> IMHO it is best to
> keep the functionality between 4.0 and 5.0 as much the same as
> possible, to give everybody a chance to port their code to 5.0 without
> unexpected side effects, so we can build up a large testbed for the
> 5.? series as quickm as possible.

OK, but if we follow Peter's new suggestion (which includes thinking
about which routines we want to break in 5.2 and give them different
names already in 5.0), we can both give people this chance _and_ keep
compatibility between 5.0 and 5.2. So there's no need for branching
anyway (which was what I reacted against in the first place).

Sven