On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> At Fri, 3 May 2013 17:29:52 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote: > > A few minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote: > > > > > > FWIW, this was the bug in redex that prompted me to send this > > > message (it was there for some time since it wasn't a syntax error > > > .... it was similar in spirit to the code I posted; things broke > > > when #f was an argument) > > > > [I think that it's good to have a much more relaxed policy about > > breaking compatibility in cases like this: so far there was no real > > code found that uses the feature, but there is one instance of code > > that would get fixed by the change...] > > Well, Ian provided an example from real code, right? Ian is willing to > change his code, but the code sounds real. > > There's also the use in `unparse-pattern' in Redex. Maybe that's the > troublesome one that Robby has in mind changing (or he would be happy > to change it, obviously), but it's another real example. > > No, that was not the example. The code I sent at the beginning of the thread was an adjusted version of the bug that hid in Redex for, roughly, months. It was a real bug and caused real problems and we knew something was wrong but didn't find it for some time. In other words, this isn't some made-up, code cleanliness-based request. Robby
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev