OK. Robby
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > I second your judgment. I think it should be a part of the exercise to > exorcise such hidden interfaces. > > > On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote: > >> On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Robby Findler wrote: >>> 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? >> >> Yes, because it is not roughly like any of those library functions, due to >> all the setup that is skipped by using it directly. This function is not >> documented in Dorai's original documentation for slatex or in our own. >> Thus, anyone who has used that function was using an undocumented, >> unsupported interface. Part of this exercise, I assumed, was to decide >> which exports were important to document, and which exports have been >> unintentionally exported and thus should be unexported or considered >> `private'. This looks like a perfect example of the latter, instead of the >> former. >> >> I'm happy with putting it back and just removing it from the docs check >> instead, but I figured the move into `private' would make it more clear that >> this was _not_ something that should be used directly. >> >> Stevie >> _________________________________________________ >> For list-related administrative tasks: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
