backwards compatibility does not mean you must have a substitute. Your concerns
should be registered however for future attempts to deprecate this feature --
if it is used.
On Aug 1, 2012, at 8:18 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 20 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
>> I think the idea is that "com
20 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> I think the idea is that "compatibility" means "we are keeping this
> to be backwards compatible with unknown code that is using it" (or
> at least, that's one of the meanings).
Sounds like `scheme/nest' should be there too then. But in any case,
what bugs m
I think the idea is that "compatibility" means "we are keeping this to
be backwards compatible with unknown code that is using it" (or at
least, that's one of the meanings).
Robby
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Yesterday, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
>> At Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:4
Yesterday, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> At Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:42:53 -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> >
> > 1. Revert the addition of `compatibility/package' and
> > `compatibility/mpair', including the documentation changes (but
> > maybe add back some text to discourage misuse of these librar
At Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:04:40 -0600,
Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> At Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:08:16 -0400, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> > Mutable pair functions are in `racket/base', I didn't touch these and am
> > not planning to. Mutable list functions, though, I moved. The name is
> > misleading.
>
> Shoul
At Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:08:16 -0400, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> Mutable pair functions are in `racket/base', I didn't touch these and am
> not planning to. Mutable list functions, though, I moved. The name is
> misleading.
Should `compatibility/mpair' be `compatibility/mlist' (while
`racket/mpair' k
At Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:42:53 -0600,
Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> At Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:45:07 -0400, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> > At Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:52:06 -0600,
> > Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > > If we really want to have two names for these things --- the
> > > compatibility name and the "compatibili
At Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:26:56 -0700,
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> >
> > To start afresh, here are two suggestions, which are mutually
> > exclusive. The first is my preference:
> >
> > 1. Revert the addition of `compatibility/package' and
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> To start afresh, here are two suggestions, which are mutually
> exclusive. The first is my preference:
>
> 1. Revert the addition of `compatibility/package' and
> `compatibility/mpair', including the documentation changes (but
> ma
At Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:45:07 -0400, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> At Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:52:06 -0600,
> Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > If we really want to have two names for these things --- the
> > compatibility name and the "compatibility" name --- then I think we
> > should at least consolidate to a sing
I meant literal file copies (or links if that works everywhere). And I think
that would satisfy Matthew too.
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
At Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:52:06 -0600,
Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:00:12 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> > I fully and enthusiastically agree with this perspective but I don't think
> > this
> > is high on our list of things to do.
> >
> > When we consider such moves, we shoul
At Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:00:12 -0400,
Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> Having said that, I would like to propose that we COPY
> files/subcollections from racket/ to compatibility/ (and keep them in
> sync) if we wish to indicate that they are not really rackety.
Assuming you mean keeping the same interfa
At Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:52:52 -0400, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> The main advantage (IMO) of having, say, mutable lists in
> `compatibility' is that searching the docs points there instead of to
> `racket'. This makes it clear that they are not a blessed Racket
> feature. This is (IMO) the main point
On Jul 30, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> The main advantage (IMO) of having, say, mutable lists in
> `compatibility' is that searching the docs points there instead of to
> `racket'. This makes it clear that they are not a blessed Racket
> feature. This is (IMO) the main point of th
At Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:10:28 -0600,
Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> At Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:33:54 -0400, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> > How about having a `compatibility' collect, which would include this and
> > things like `racket/package' (compatibility with Chez) and `racket/mpair'
> > (compatibility wit
At Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:33:54 -0400, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> How about having a `compatibility' collect, which would include this and
> things like `racket/package' (compatibility with Chez) and `racket/mpair'
> (compatibility with Scheme)? It would be harder to confuse these things
> with blessed
17 matches
Mail list logo