[plt-dev] Objections to removing class100?

From: Matthias Felleisen (matthias at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Mon Nov 23 07:35:40 EST 2009

No, that's a misunderstanding. class100 forces us to make
contracts for class.ss unsound. We need to change the latter
(a tiny bit) and most of the uses of 'bad' stuff is in class100

-- Matthias

On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Robby Findler wrote:

> 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/...).
> Robby
> 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
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev

Posted on the dev mailing list.