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 "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. > > I'm sorry that I've been so unclear! > > 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 > maybe add back some text to discourage misuse of these libraries). > > 2. Leave things as they are, but move the sections that document > `racket/package' and `racket/mpair' out of the Reference and into > the same "Compatibility" document that describes > `compatibility/package' and `compatibility/mpair'.
I'll go with the second one. I think it makes it clearer that these features are not Rackety. Thanks for clarifying! Vincent _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev