Yesterday, Vincent St-Amour wrote: > At Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:42:53 -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > > > 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.
-1 for leaving `package' there -- as questionable as its utility might be, I don't think that there was ever any use of it that fell under a "compatibility" category. (OTOH, I have at least one use of it that is definitely not compatibility.) -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev