From: Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@...>
Date: 2011-10-03T08:09:40+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:39848] Re: 2.0 feature questionnaire

On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Oops, I was mentioned.
>
> (10/02/2011 05:34 PM), Jeremy Kemper wrote:
>>> |3. MVM, with inter-vm message passing.
>>>
>>> I have not decided yet, but since MVM requires incompatible changes to
>>> C API, so we might pend it to Ruby 3.0.
>>
>> I understand @shyouhei's branch is backward compatible for extensions
>> that don't use MVM features.
>>
>> I think it's another case where the benefits outweigh the cost.
>>
>> C extensions can gradually update for MVM compatibility.
>>
>> Otherwise, we wait for Ruby 3.0 and we confront the same problem. Then
>> we pend it to Ruby 4.0 for the same reason, because it requires
>> incompatible changes to the C API.
>
> It seems the definition of "API" differs between you.

No, I agree, the API is not compatible. I mean to say that old
extensions do not break if they avoid MVM features [ruby-core:35698]

> My branch is merely compatible in C source code layer. �That is, in
> short, binary incompatible. �You have to recompile all the existing
> extensions. �If you can accept this situation, yes, the source codes
> themselves are compatible.

Thanks for clarifying this.

Jeremy