On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Tim Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Jay, for highlighting the warning which pretty well says that if I do > what I did then I deserve what happened to me :-) > > More generally, is there any means of "annotating" that a function/library is > deprecated (I assume you'd consider that library to be deprecated). So that I > would have to face the fact every time I ran my software? > > Is Racket getting mature enough that more mand more things are going to be > left in "just for backward compatibility"? > > Without too much consideration, I ask is there a place in contracts for that?
I think that there are lots of things that are just for compatibility. I think that it would be a bad idea to do something like printing to stderr for using it and I'm not sure that contract per se are the right mechanism. I do think that contracts are good model as they are an annotation "on the side". I think the ideal would be a way to know during building that you use something for compat and a possible mechanism would be a special logging level to pass the information out-of-band during compilation. Jay -- Jay McCarthy Associate Professor PLT @ CS @ UMass Lowell http://jeapostrophe.github.io "Wherefore, be not weary in well-doing, for ye are laying the foundation of a great work. And out of small things proceedeth that which is great." - D&C 64:33 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
