Wim van der Meer <wpjvandermeer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > Unfortunately, you still break BeOS compatibility, though, since > > you > > obviously removed the wrong version -- or are you planning on adding > > that now as I suggested? > Yes, I actually am working on that now. It will take a little time > though, maybe until next weekend, depending on how much time I can > spend on it and how soon I understand what I need to do. I might > prepare a patch first for review. As I outlined, it should be as simple as adding the old constructor into the private section of the class. The "private" keyword is only evaluated during compilation, the linker doesn't care, so new software should get the new constructor, while old software can continue to use the old one. > If BeOS compatibility is strictly to be observed in trunk I will > revert to the "correct" version today. I am sorry about the mess, I > will be more careful about my changes in the future. Be welcome, binary compatibility is just something one needs to learn about. Bye, Axel.