> On the other hand, if you want Racket to be an exercise and showcase for > perfect backward compatibility, that might be interesting. Perhaps someone > can find > some novel techniques to help do that, and some way of demonstrating the > contribution (seamless backward compatibility throughout evolution, without > some cost > that systems traditionally incur to satisfy that). >
I've always wondered if simply writing a translation layer between version N and N+1 would be enough. If a translation layer existed for every new version then any old version could simply be transitioned between all intermediate layers. Of course that gets expensive as time goes on so you could eventually write translation layers between larger gaps, like N to N+10. Does any system actually do that? _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
