[plt-dev] Objections to removing class100?

From: Robby Findler (robby at eecs.northwestern.edu)
Date: Mon Nov 23 06:39:11 EST 2009

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/...).


On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Michael Sperber
<sperber at deinprogramm.de> wrote:
> 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
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev

Posted on the dev mailing list.