read old format

2009/6/3 Lukas Rytz :
> Hi Toni,
>
> how long do we want to allow UnPickling version 4 classfiles? Is it OK if
> I remove the which reads classfiles written pre-named-arguments and
> pre-new-annotations?

As a practical observation: I think it's basically impossible that 2.8
will manage to achieve any sort of binary compatibility with pre 2.8
classfiles. Even without a single compiler change, the old classfiles
have been compiled against the old collections library, and the new
one is only mostly source compatible with the old. It's not even
slightly binary compatible. So being able to read old classfiles in
the compiler seems not at all useful.

David MacIver wrote:
> 2009/6/3 Lukas Rytz :
>> Hi Toni,
>>
>> how long do we want to allow UnPickling version 4 classfiles? Is it OK if
>> I remove the which reads classfiles written pre-named-arguments and
>> pre-new-annotations?
>
> As a practical observation: I think it's basically impossible that 2.8
> will manage to achieve any sort of binary compatibility with pre 2.8
> classfiles.
>

Indeed, the plan is to remove the ability to read old classfiles even
before the first beta/preview release is out. The current warning is only
meant to be transitional: if you remove some of the code that is required
to read the old classfiles, you can remove the warning code in
UnPickler.scala as well at the same time (it is clearly marked).
Toni

Test message (I am testing a new website feature with Fabien), please ignore.

On Thursday June 4 2009, admin wrote:
> Test message (I am testing a new website feature with Fabien), please
> ignore.

One feature your Web site should implement is thread NON-hijacking.

Also are you aware that you added a Reply-To field and mangled the
Subject header?

Randall Schulz

Randall R Schulz wrote:
> On Thursday June 4 2009, admin wrote:
>> Test message (I am testing a new website feature with Fabien), please
>> ignore.
>
> One feature your Web site should implement is thread NON-hijacking.
>

This particular message was meant to be appended to the thread.

> Also are you aware that you added a Reply-To field and mangled the
> Subject header?
>

Yes. You might speculate that if we send a test message we would actually
check the result. Regardless: that message was a one-off, we have to
contend with the centralized list management system at EPFL and we don't
have access to all the configuration options ourselves. Things should be
sorted now.
If you have further questions, please contact me privately. Thanks!
Toni