[racket-dev] [plt] Push #25038: master branch updated

From: Eli Barzilay (eli at barzilay.org)
Date: Fri Jul 20 19:32:42 EDT 2012

Three hours ago, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> I'm not sure this belongs in `racket'. This is not a Racket feature.
> It's closer to a CL compatibility library.


> How about having a `compatibility' collect, which would include this
> and things like `racket/package' (compatibility with Chez) and
> `racket/mpair' (compatibility with Scheme)? It would be harder to
> confuse these things with blessed Racket features.


Two hours ago, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> -1
> I think proliferating indirections and aliases is just as bad as (or
> maybe worse than) proliferating top-level collections. If it's in
> mzlib/ and it's still really useful, move it to racket/ (or data/,
> etc). If it isn't (eg, mzlib/defmacro, perhaps mzlib/thread), then
> just leave it alone.

+1 for the sentiment of having too many redirections both at the file
level and at the binding level (like the many @scheme bindings in
scribble).  But OTOH, I did mention that one of the weird things when
I talk about `defmacro' in class is the arbitrary looking "mzlib"...

So I think that organized expirations address this nicely.  Perhaps
it's another argument in favor of throwing a syntax error at the
end-of-life of a deprecated library/name, one that explicitly says
"use `compat/defmacro' instead of `mzlib/defmacro'", and leaving that
on for a release or two.  This will save people a dig through the
docs/mailing-list/google to find out how to change things.

(BTW, I think that the `scheme' collection could go this way too.)

          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

Posted on the dev mailing list.