<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 11 Jun 2013, at 1:14 AM, Luís Oliveira wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">[...]<br></font><br><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">There were two reasons for deprecating the bare struct type, then.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">From the implementation point of view, the disambiguation code is<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">intrusive and error-prone so we'd like to remove it as soon as<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">possible.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">in itself, that does not convince. the less-than-obvious reasons for variations at usage sites and the variations themselves would appear to this reader to be at least as intrusive and as error-prone as the much less numerous accommodations in the cffi code. from skimming the mailing list archive, it appears that this was a situation where the implications took some time to comprehend, but once they have been, what reason would exists, to require unnecessary forms? perhaps if either the problem were self-evident or the documentation would make a clearer case for the elaboration, it would be easier to follow your argument.<br></blockquote><br>You are quite correct that the backwards compatibility code isn't as<br>bad as it once was. (I didn't remember the extent of the<br>simplification achieved in the last rewrite! :-))<br><br>Still, the API argument stands.</div></blockquote><br></div><div>which is? (a link to the pertinent point in the thread suffices.)</div><br><div>best regards, from berlin,</div><div><br></div></body></html>