On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Stevie Strickland
<sstri...@racket-lang.org> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:01 PM, <sstri...@racket-lang.org> wrote:
>>> f5de8bd Stevie Strickland <sstri...@racket-lang.org> 2011-04-26 12:57
>>> :
>>> | Move scmxlated source for slatex into private.
>>> |
>>> | Anyone using the sole export from slatex.rkt should really be using the
>>> | functions provided by slatex-wrapper.rkt instead, which I imagine is why
>>> | this has never been documented.
>>> :
>>> R collects/slatex/{ => private}/slatex.rkt (100%)
>>> M collects/slatex/README | 4 ++--
>>> M collects/slatex/slatex-wrapper.rkt | 2 +-
>>> M collects/slatex/tests/test-docs-complete.rkt | 1 -
>>
>> Any reason not to just document it instead? This code has been
>> unchanging forever and I don't think we want to break old scripts
>> whimsically.
>
> I would imagine that any old scripts would be using the documented
> slatex-wrapper interface, especially since there's a lot of setup work done
> in that interface that would have to be duplicated otherwise. Do we have
> reason to believe that people have been using the undocumented
> `slatex::process-main-tex-file' function instead?
I don't know of people who are, but I think that in situations like
these we should err on the side of not-breaking-code.
In this case, I would document this function as "roughly like the
@racketmodname[slatex] library function X, provided here for backwards
compatibility. New code should use X." or similar.
Is that any more difficult than what's been done?
Robby
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
