But most people wouldn't dream of touching the core Racket engine (for much the same reason). Are these guidelines for kernel hackers?
Shriram On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > There's code and there's code. I don't think slideshow is at the level of > Racket or Typed Racket or DrRacket. If it went away, I'd have no trouble > changing the ten or twenty files in my world that use it. Sure, I'd lose a > few days but if I lost Racket, I'd lose a year and more. > > -- Matthias > > > > > > On Aug 19, 2010, at 9:50 AM, Casey Klein wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@ccs.neu.edu> >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Jay McCarthy <jay.mccar...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Please comment. >>> >>> I think that this: >>> >>> "Your first task when changing old code is to build an adequate test >>> suite to ensure you do not introduce new mistakes as you attempt to >>> improve it. Thank you for improving the world for future generations!" >>> >>> is too demanding. There are enormous areas of our code that don't >>> have a test suite. How comprehensive a test suite do I need before >>> changing slideshow? Or scribble (which has a test suite for the >>> syntax, but not the language)? >> >> Robby and Matthew, would Slideshow exist today if you'd be expected to >> build it with this process? >> _________________________________________________ >> For list-related administrative tasks: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev > > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
