Re: MI: type prefixes for values

[Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>]

 > Anyway, I think I'm OK with this change, but I want to track down one
 > more thing first.

OK

 > Adding the fullname field was considered (as I wrote above) as a
 > backwards-compatible change.  I don't intend on allowing
 > incompatible changes to sneak into MI2 (well, hopefully...).
 > MI3 will be ready when it's ready :-)

Lets describe in the manual how the (released) protocol might change then to
give developers a certain expectation and so that they can guard against those
changes:

1) New MI commands may be added.  Yes (as front-ends don't need to use them).

2) New fields may be added to the output of any MI command.  Yes.

3) The format of field's content e.g type prefix, may change so parse it
   at your own risk.  Yes, in general?

4) The order of fields may change?  Shouldn't really matter but it might
   resolve inconsistencies.

And we could add to the list as new cases arise.


-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob