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 should always consider the opportunity > > cost. > > What could I accomplish instead? > > > > 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. > > That's committed already, so I'm suggesting that we do more work to > un-commit the change. It's the spirit of avoiding more of the > kind of work that you suggest we avoid, though. > > 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 single compatibility manual by moving > the documentation for `racket/mpair' and `racket/package' to the > compatibility manual.
To make sure I understand correctly, you're suggesting that: - We keep the `compatibility' collect. - We keep `compatibility/defmacro'. - We remove `compatibility/mpair' and `compatibility/package', and move them back to `racket/mpair' and `racket/package', respectively. - We leave the reference and the compatibility manual as is, with docs for `racket/mpair' and `racket/package' in the compatibility manual. If that's what you're suggesting, I'll implement it. Vincent _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
