At Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:26:56 -0700, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > > > To start afresh, here are two suggestions, which are mutually > > exclusive. The first is my preference: > > > > 1. Revert the addition of `compatibility/package' and > > `compatibility/mpair', including the documentation changes (but > > maybe add back some text to discourage misuse of these libraries). > > I definitely think we should keep `mpair` as a more-than-compatibility > library. It's useful in real data structures, and it's nice not to > have to roll your own mutable linked list when it's the right choice.
Mutable pair functions are in `racket/base', I didn't touch these and am not planning to. Mutable list functions, though, I moved. The name is misleading. Vincent _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev