On 08/15/2011 01:51 AM, Laruence wrote:
> Hi Lester:
> I totally agree with you about bc break things,
>
> but actully I don't think this proposal will bring a big bc break,
> it's a new approach , but not a big change,
>
> I am meaning that the old codes can work fine because rarely codes
> depends on a negative length.
>
> do you agree?
I agree that this is not a "big" BC break. However, my argument is that
small BC breaks like this are actually much worse than "big" BC breaks.
A big and obvious BC break is usually easy to deal with. An accumulation
of small subtle BC breaks that rarely hit you and then only on certain
input strings, those are the ones that kill you.
-Rasmus