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

Reply via email to