In the science and simulation collections I explicitly hid the usage of PLoT - thus, all of the -plot routines in separate modules. The original PLoT has always been something of a kludge - albeit a useful one - that I expected to be replaced at some point. Bring it on!
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote: > I think concern about backward-compatibility is great. (For example, > moving to non-mutable pairs was painful for one of my libraries. "#:exists" > without backward-compatibility or static checking was annoying.) > > I have two questions: > > 1. Does anyone think that there is likely any *substantial* *current* use > of the plotting-related C code in question that you *don't* know about? Or > do you probably know of all the people who might be affected, and you can > work with them on this question? > > 2. If you want to get some C code out of core Racket, does the option of > moving it to PLaneT simplify things? > > -- > http://www.neilvandyke.org/ > > ______________________________**___________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/**listinfo/dev<http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev> >
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
