Re: [PATCH] Hooks still needed for annotations

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 06:57:59PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> >  > >  > Do you already use level 3, or could we simply just start stripping down
> >  > >  > level 2?

The point of introducing level 3 - a stripped down version of level 2 -
was to transition clients to using it and then discard level 2, instead
of having to find everyone using annotations and work out whether we
broke them every time someone wants to strip something out of level 2. 
When everyone we care about is happy with level 3, we can kill level 2.

Bob, sometimes I feel like you pick very strange things to label as
"hard".  What's hard about autodetecting the availability of annotate
level 3?  Or even doing it based on version number?

> >  > > Keeping level 3 allows a transition stage, I would now like to use it for
> >  > > breakpoints-invalid and frames-invalid as stated above, in case I suddenly
> >  > > find that Emacs does need them.
> >  > 
> >  > Well breakpoints-invalid and frames-invalid already work (kind of) in 
> >  > a2.  There is no reason to deprecate a2 and then get the same
> >  > functionality in a3. (Although I might be missing something?). I really
> >  > think that adding an a3 interface is a real bad idea.
> > 
> > Level 3 has a reduced functionality.  You've already said you think its a bad
> > idea, I'm trying to explain why I don't agree.  I'm not adding it, its
> > already there.
> 
> OK. Thanks for keeping me up to speed. I was under the impression that
> level 2 was going to go away completly and level 3 would be the
> temporary replacement. If level 2 stays (even though it's reduced), it
> would be completly fine with me.

Annotations are going to go away.  Period.  Not yet - not until we
agree that MI is ready - but I expect level 2 to go away before level
3.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC