Stevie Strickland <sstri...@ccs.neu.edu> writes: > 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.
As I said: As far as I'm concerned, zap it. Thanks for explaining the rationale! -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
