On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote: > Robby Findler wrote at 07/10/2012 05:20 PM: >> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Matthew Flatt<mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: >> >>>> - mzlib [...] >>>> - mzscheme [...] >>>> >>> >>> I don't think these should be removed or deprecated, ever. I have lots >>> of code that still refers to them --- I doubt that I'm alone --- and I >>> think we should be able to support them. >>> >> >> I agree that these should never be removed. I would not mind if they >> were marked in some way as "these are here for legacy reasons. New >> code should use XYZ" with specific pointers and helpful advice. > > I'm still using some "mzlib" in *new* code. Specifically, "getpid", > "this-expression-source-directory", "gethostname", and perhaps one or two > other things. I could find other ways to do those things if I had to, but > those definitions pop up when I search, and there's no glaring warning not > to use them.
All the useful contents in mzscheme and mzlib should really have an equivalent somewhere else, usually in racket/<something>, so that new code never needs to import old libraries. That would allow mzscheme and mzlib to be deprecated as legacy code. Personally I'd be okay with it being removed after sufficient warning, but I can see the argument for maintaining them indefinitely. If we ever get a distribution split up into separate packages, then developers could choose whether to install mzscheme and mzlib if they really [did/didn't] need them, and we'd get the best of both worlds. --Carl _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
