Mark Dickinson wrote: > Still, binary compatibility seems like a fairly strong reason not to > remove the closure field. My understanding is that there a) 2.x extension modules are not binary compatible with 3.x, and b) there are essentially no 3.x extension modules in the field. Is that accurate? If we don't have an installed base (yet) to worry about, now's the time to make this change. /larry/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4