On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > At Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:04:46 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: >> > This all looks right to me. >> >> Any thoughts on `mzlib/unit200` or `mzlib/compile`? > > I imagine fixing them later by > > * moving the useful part of `mzlib/compile' and putting a > compatibility `mzlib/compile' into "compatbility-lib"; > > * revising `file/gzip' to not use `mzlib/unit200'; and > > * dropping support for arbitrary unpack code in ".plt" files (and > instead just pattern match on the only `unit' expression form that > is ever used in practice).
Do you plan to do this before the next release? This brings up a larger question -- what kind of backwards-compatibility commitment do we plan to make for the contents of the "core", vs packages that need to be installed? I can imagine a few possibilities: (1) anything shipped with the core is still shipped with the core in later releases, (2) code in the core may migrate to packages that clients will need to add as dependencies, or possibly other solutions. Sam _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
