On Thursday 23 August 2007 13:48:40 matt ingalls wrote:
> i don't think find/replace to an old score is a great solution and do
> not like making new names for new or old opcodes.   For the RARE cases when
> a person wants to render an old score then there definitely should be a
> backwards compatibility opcode library with the SAME names they can be
> installed to override the new ones.

But it is far easier to just rename and document in the tutorial, or just drop 
the old behavior. Supporting misbehavior doesn't sound good to me. 

> i think far more important is having the better code be the most
> immediate/accessible. Having many opcodes that do the same thing but named
> slightly different (with the improved version always having some number
> tacked on to the end of the name) is a terrible design IMO.  The recent
> threads on cpsmidi and this one proves that point  -- users do not
> intuitively use (or even find!) the "improved" versions of the original
> opcodes -- i would think in most cases you would want the improved
> version to be the default!

Indeed.

I usually find large projects, when going from major to major version (ie: 
csound4->csound5) , break compatibilty, and have a porting guide explaining 
differences, and (sometimes) why they are there. If you want to keep using 
old, misbehaving opcodes, then use the old, misbehaving software. Otherwise 
port your software (or music, in this case) to the new correctly functioning 
ones. Supporting bad opcodes because someone may be "exploiting" or abusing 
the misbehaviour of the opcode is not a good idea IMO.

-- 

	Felipe Sateler