Stevie Strickland <sstri...@ccs.neu.edu> writes: > On Nov 23, 2009, at 2:09 AM, Michael Sperber wrote: >> You're saying that leaving class100 as-is (i.e. without contracts) is >> harder than zapping it, right? (I'm totally not interested in >> contracts >> for class100.) > > Right. The class100 forms rewrites into uses of class* from scheme/ > class, and some of the changes needed would also require extending the > class100 forms, which means they'd no longer be strictly the same > interface as the old PLT class system. Thus, this seemed like an > ideal time to just remove the deprecated interface, since there is no > reason of which I'm aware that classes written using mzlib/class100 > cannot be straightforwardly ported to scheme/class.
I was hoping you could just copy the old code and leave it in place. But if it creates any amount of work, by all means delete it. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev