Three minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> +1 to that sentiment.
>
> I think this whole conversation is meant to be about how do we best
> get from here to there. The question pending is how much is it
> reasonable to break code that might use more obscure parts of the
> current api. I'm taking the relatively hard-line stance that we
> should not break any of it (even without really knowing how much of
> it exists), partly just because I think preserving backwards
> compatibility (esp. for core libraries) is important and partly
> because there is not yet a authoritative response of the form "well,
> please just go use this well-designed library instead" available
> yet.
FWIW, I'm not convinced by the first point -- especially given that
it's about a unitized interface in net/*, and I'd like to see them all
go away together with undusting some of the code.
But I am fine with hacking around it given the second point.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
