On 2013-01-11 20:35:50 -0600, Robby Findler wrote: > (The diff shows all of the tests changing). Are the tests for exported > functions? If so, that sound bad.
Only a subset of the string->date tests should have changed in the diff (which is how it shows up in my mail reader). > Was the mutation exposed via the library? No, it wasn't. > That sounds like a backwards incompatible change (in that some programs > that could use srfi/19 would get #f out of selectors that now get > something else). > Could a srfi/19 date be a union of two structs, where one represented a > time only? Potentially yes, but then it wouldn't be a Racket date struct. Also, I think the implementation of srfi/19 was actually violating its documented interface by allowing booleans to show up in these fields. Cheers, Asumu _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
