I don't think that "it's true of every type system everywhere" is a good rationale for not owning backwards-incompatible changes (even when they are "good" backwards incompatible changes, as this one certainly is). I do agree with you, however, that what is especially bad is requiring changes to "working" code bases (for whatever definition of that word you wish to take (that is most friendly to people that use Racket)).
How about this one? (Starting from Matthias's offering and editing the apology from Sam's a bit.) Typed Racket closes a safety hole in the typing for the exception system. The revised type system restricts raise so that only instances of the exn structure type and flat data are communicated to handlers. As a side-effect, previously well-typed programs may fail to typecheck. Robby On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote: > The reason I don't like the second sentence you wrote is that it's > true of every type system everywhere. And also, the more significant > change for users will almost certainly be the first one (it's required > changes to several packages already) -- almost no one raises anything > that isn't an exn, and so I haven't seen any code actually affected by > the second change. _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
