I second your judgment. I think it should be a part of the exercise to exorcise such hidden interfaces.
On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote: > 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 _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev