On 09/29/2011 05:51 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Robby Findler
<ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Eli Barzilay<e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
Yesterday, Neil Toronto wrote:
1. Obviously, Module 2's path should be 'plot'. Right? And its
documentation needs a note that it's deprecated. (I'll do that.)
I don't know if it's that important, maybe poll the users list for
potential code that uses it? If it is, then given that it's a
complete reimplementation, I think that it's fine to go with some
`plot/compat' or something like that -- it forces users who have code
to change files, but my guess is that most people used it just to try
stuff out in quick scripts, and on the other side you have Doug who is
deep enough into it that he'll most likely need to change code anyway.
I don't think we should do that. And certainly not without a release
or two of warning.
I agree with Robby. We've gotten a lot better about backwards
compatibility, and I don't think the win here is worth breaking that.
I can totally see Eli's point, as the first result when searching for
"plot" in the manuals is the old stuff. But I agree with you two. This
isn't worth antagonizing users over.
Except maybe Doug. We can always antagonize the users we love most. :D
I've done a dry run with a repo cloned from github, where I've replaced
most of 'plot' with a compatibility module and added 'rackplot'. I'll
get it in the main repo as soon as Eli signs me up for everything
that'll make me formally responsible for the new code (push list, bug
list, nag list, etc.).
Neil T
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
