[racket] Poll: Does anybody besides Doug use 'plot'?

On 10/01/2011 01:03 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Sat, 01 Oct 2011 14:18:08 -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
>>>> 2. Make the APIs for the old library and new library not conflict, by
>>>> making any necessary changes to the new API, and put both APIs together
>>>> in single library named "plot" that users get with "(require plot)".
>>>> Document the old API parts as deprecated.
>>>
>>> I had thought of this, but not seriously checked it out until you
>>> suggested it just now.
>>
>> Sounds like option #2 would be messy and a lot of work -- bogging down
>> innovation.
>
> FWIW, this is the option that I usually pick. It's usually some work,
> support for the old API is usually less than 100%, and the combination
> is always less pretty than a clean slate. At the same time, it's often
> a good compromise between progress and backward compatibility.

I'm trying it in pieces.

The part I thought would be hardest, making vector-field accept an 
argument 'f' with the contract

     (or/c (real? real? . -> . (vector/c real? real?))
           ((vector/c real? real?) . -> . (vector/c real? real?))

was actually really easy. I use procedure-arity-includes? to test which 
case 'f' is, and the contract system raises an exception when the actual 
signature of 'f' is ambiguous.

That's just awesome.

Neil T