On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Robby Findler wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Michael Sperber > <sper...@deinprogramm.de> wrote: >> >> 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. > > 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/...).
Just in case I didn't make it clear earlier, the class system represented by mzlib/class100 is not a separate implementation, but rather a thin veneer over scheme/class that merely allows for the same syntactic interface as that of the earlier, v103-era class system. To keep mzlib/class100 around and completely unaltered in both syntax and semantics, I would need to preserve an older version of scheme/class and thus maintain two large implementations of class systems that differed only in slight, but important, ways. To then allow the two class systems to interoperate, which is currently the case, all operations on objects and classes of each would need to be aware of implementation details of the other, which would add much complexity to both. Stevie_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
