[plt-dev] Objections to removing class100?

From: Stevie Strickland (sstrickl at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Mon Nov 23 02:31:39 EST 2009

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.

If this does happen, it won't be until either late December or after  
the new year.  Also, I'd be more than happy to write up my experiences  
in porting uses of class100 and friends in the PLT Scheme code base to  
scheme/class as a porting guide if that would make the removal more  


Posted on the dev mailing list.