Andreas Kupries wrote:
>  > [DGP wrote]:
>  > The proposed C routine
>  >    CONST84_RETURN char* Tcl_PkgRequire(Tcl_Interp *interp,
>  > 		CONST char *name, int objc, Tcl_Obj *CONST objv[]);
>  > has some problems, and perhaps some missed opportunities.
>  [...]
>  > Combine these observations, and I think a better proposed routine is:
>  >   int Tcl_PkgRequireCmd(Tcl_Interp *interp, CONST char *name, int objc,
>  > 		Tcl_Obj *CONST objv[], ClientData *clientDataPtr);
> 
>  With the exception of the name I can agree with the changes.
> 
>  Anybody else with an opinion on this ? Hemang ?

The new routine should definitely not be called Tcl_PkgRequire().
Whatever the benefits of the new interface might be, they're not
worth breaking source-compatibility.

On another note: I remain opposed to the [package prefer] mechanism.
The decision to use or not use "unstable" packages belongs to the end user,
not to applications (and certainly not to packages).  [package prefer] 
just adds another layer of complexity that will only make it harder 
for users to effect those decisions.


--Joe English

  jenglish@[...].com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Tcl-Core mailing list
Tcl-Core@[...].net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tcl-core