Special Invitation :-) HC&A Report (November 2003) (fwd)
GK at ninebynine.org
Wed Oct 29 10:42:41 EST 2003
At 11:44 27/10/03 -0800, Iavor S. Diatchki wrote:
> 1. at what point should we remove the Unstable.* name, i.e. does
> anyone have any criteria besides "it seems to work"?
>most software these days seems to be distributed on this basis, so perhaps
>we should adapt this as well.
>i don't have time to prove the corectness of the monad library, but it
>seems to work. i can't gurantee that
>there are no bugs, and i don't think we should freeze its interface as
>soon as the Unstable.* bit is removed
>(especially for some of the newer transformers). i think "releasing" the
>library is a good idea as it will give
>more people the opportunity to use it, hence find bugs in the
>implementation or the interface.
In the area of network protocol design, a touchstone often used is some
variant of "two interoperable implementations" (e.g. the "running code"
leg of "rough consensus and running code").
Maybe a comparable criterion for library code might relate to its use in
real, complete applications?
More information about the Libraries