I think they'd have to say that the contract system is unsound if class100 is present. But perhaps it can just be treated the same was as (require unsafe/...).
Robby On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Michael Sperber <sper...@deinprogramm.de> wrote: > > 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 > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
