On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Tim Brown <t...@cityc.co.uk> 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
