Just now, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
> > Just now, Robby Findler wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > If it's just that layer (rather than keeping the C code in), then it's
> > not completely compatible anyway. (And I don't see a point in keeping
> > a "strict" backward compatibility if it's not strict anyway.)
>
> We seem to be miscommunicating. I'm saying that it seems likely that
> people have scripts and things that use the API of the plot library
> to build graphs and things in various places. I'm saying that it
> seems unlikely that people have programs that depend on a
> pixel-perfect rendering.
The issue is not pixel placements, it's keeping the C code that was
ripped out of gnuplot.
> I'm saying that, imo, the best thing we can do for our users here is
> provide a compatibility layer for the old plot in the same place as
> the old plot currently is that calls into the new plot and uses it
> to draw the actual pictures.
--
((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
