As far as I can tell they are up to date. Robby
On Friday, June 28, 2013, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Robby Findler > <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt > > <sa...@ccs.neu.edu<javascript:;> > > > > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Robby Findler > >> <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > One fairly clear thing is that the mzlib manual can move into the > >> > compatibility-lib. > >> > >> I agree. > >> > >> > We could move the mzlib-specific files from (the collection) > >> > tests/racket > >> > into a new tests/mzlib and put that into the compatibility-lib. > >> > > >> > But that probably requires actual adjustments because tests/racket is > >> > load-based ... > >> > > >> > Probably all of the mzlib-specific tests could be made to run in a > #lang > >> > context without too much trouble, tho. > >> > >> I don't feel 100% confident mucking with the tests/racket > >> infrastructure, and I don't know how worth it this would be. > >> > >> BTW, you have some commented-out tests in racket/private/contract that > >> `(require mzlib/contract)`. > >> > >> > > > > I know. Is that a problem? > > No, I wouldn't think so. Just wondering if you had intended to update > them. > > Sam >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
