[plt-dev] Objections to removing class100?

Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> writes:

> On Nov 22, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Michael Sperber wrote:
>
>> 
>> Stevie Strickland <sstrickl at ccs.neu.edu> writes:
>> 
>>> We're interested in finally removing class100 from PLT Scheme.  Are
>>> there any objections?
>> 
>> I'm a user, but not a heavy one.  Is it significant work to keep it in?
>
> We are in the process of introducing class contracts. These 
> should include contracts for inits and init-fields. Our regular
> class system has a **strange** init behavior, which is only used
> in class100 to its full extent. Specifically, you can do things
> like 
>
>  (if (tuesday?) (super-new [x 10]) (super-new [y 'a]))
>
> and you can hide this expression in 'strange' places so that 
> it is impossible to attach contracts

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.)

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla