[plt-dev] Objections to removing class100?

Stevie Strickland <sstrickl at 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