Hello Matthew,
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 08:53, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > Thanks for your responses to the MysterX poll. Based on those > responses, here's the plan: > > [...] > * Reimplement the COM parts (core and events) as `ffi/com'. The > interface of `ffi/com' will not match `mysterx' exactly; a new > implementation of `mysterx' will wrap `ffi/com' for non-ActiveX > backward compatibility, but porting from `ffi/com' to `mysterx' will > be encouraged. > > I'm not actually using MysterX, but for what I understood, shouldn't the above sentence read the opposite? "... porting from `mysterx' to `ffi/com' (the new implementation) will be encouraged." []'s Rodolfo Carvalho
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
