[racket] Poll: Does anybody besides Doug use 'plot'?

On 09/30/2011 05:51 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> If someone wouldn't mind a recap... are the questions the following?
>
> 1. When to retire the old implementation (not necessarily the interface)
> of old library called "plot".

No question here: we're retiring it immediately. The C code has been a 
thorn in our side for some time.

In LOC, we're replacing 15000 lines of C + 4000 lines of Racket glue 
(and various build messes) with 7000 lines of pure Racket that does a 
lot more.

> 2. Whether to call the new library "plot" (rather than, say, "plot2" or
> "newimprovedsuperplot2000").

Yep. That's part of the main question.

> 3. Whether the new library will provide a compatibility layer of some
> kind to support old code using old "plot" interface.

No question here, either. It will.

> 4. If a compatibility layer, whether old code using the compatibility
> layer will work as-is, or need changes (e.g., not all features
> implemented, doesn't work quite the same, "require" has to change from
> "plot" to "plot/compat").

Right. This is the other part of the main question. The answer to this 
depends on the answer to #2.

If the answer to #2 is "the new library is called 'plot'", then the 
answer to #4 is "you have to change (require plot) to (require 
plot/compat)". And then everything should work.

If the answer to #2 is "the new library is called 
'newimprovedsuperplot2000", then the answer to #4 is "everything should 
work".

Of course, everything might not quite work. The pixels are different 
(e.g. you might have to change a line width to get the look you want) 
and there may be something I overlooked.

> 5. Whether the old implementation of "plot" will move to PLaneT,
> regardless of whatever happens with the new library and compatibility
> layers.

Can PLaneT packages come with C code?

Neil T