On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > I don't know of people who are, but I think that in situations like > these we should err on the side of not-breaking-code. > > In this case, I would document this function as "roughly like the > @racketmodname[slatex] library function X, provided here for backwards > compatibility. New code should use X." or similar. > > Is that any more difficult than what's been done?
Yes, because it is not roughly like any of those library functions, due to all the setup that is skipped by using it directly. This function is not documented in Dorai's original documentation for slatex or in our own. Thus, anyone who has used that function was using an undocumented, unsupported interface. Part of this exercise, I assumed, was to decide which exports were important to document, and which exports have been unintentionally exported and thus should be unexported or considered `private'. This looks like a perfect example of the latter, instead of the former. I'm happy with putting it back and just removing it from the docs check instead, but I figured the move into `private' would make it more clear that this was _not_ something that should be used directly. Stevie _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
