[racket-dev] racket/date, SRFI-19, date construction

From: Asumu Takikawa (asumu at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 11 21:40:44 EST 2013

On 2013-01-11 20:35:50 -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
>    (The diff shows all of the tests changing). Are the tests for exported
>    functions? If so, that sound bad.

Only a subset of the string->date tests should have changed in the diff
(which is how it shows up in my mail reader).

>    Was the mutation exposed via the library?

No, it wasn't.

>    That sounds like a backwards incompatible change (in that some programs
>    that could use srfi/19 would get #f out of selectors that now get
>    something else).
>    Could a srfi/19 date be a union of two structs, where one represented a
>    time only?

Potentially yes, but then it wouldn't be a Racket date struct. Also, I
think the implementation of srfi/19 was actually violating its
documented interface by allowing booleans to show up in these fields.


Posted on the dev mailing list.