| ▲ | packetlost a day ago |
| This was what I was referring to. The stdlib is what would need to see backwards-compatibility-breaking changes, not the language itself. |
|
| ▲ | pdimitar 10 hours ago | parent [-] |
| I am not sure how would that work? F.ex. how would you introduce tagged unions and make the language 100% backwards-compatible... but not the stdlib? I admit I have no idea. |
| |
| ▲ | 9rx 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | The stdlib would remain 100% backwards compatible, but the implication was that he would want to see certain existing features of the stdlib amended with modified versions that leverage the new tagged unions. He imagined that modification would necessitate v2 stdlib packages to maintain sensibility. | | |
| ▲ | pdimitar 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oh. Silly me, I am ashamed for failing reading comprehension so badly. Thanks for clarifying, that makes sense. |
|
|
