On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > 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.
You're referring to the code that implements `fit', right? Shouldn't we just keep that until someone does the same thing that Neil has done for that code too? -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
