On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > 6 hours ago, Robby Findler 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. > > Do you know of any actual code that uses it?
My personal knowledge of code that uses it (or yours) is a BAD way to make this kind of decision. > The thing is that keeping things completely backward compatible means > keeping some C code (the fit thing), and that translates to a real > problem with linux distributions (see the Fedora point earlier). Not > being completely backward compatible has the advantage of moving at > least the Fedora distribution faster (and I won't be surprised if > Debian/Ubuntu would have issues with this too -- I'm surprised they > didn't say anything about it so far). I don't think that what I said implies this. A compatibility layer using Neil's new library is what was offered (or so I thought). I think we just want something that has the same Racket-level UI and something reasonably close in the pictures you get out, as discussed earlier. > To get that advantage, things will not be completely backward > compatible anyway, and in that case a change from `plot' to > `plot/compat' is a small price, IMO smaller than the benefit of > getting happy linux packages. I remain unconvinced. Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
