[racket] MysterX poll

Hello Matthew,


On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 08:53, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:

> Thanks for your responses to the MysterX poll. Based on those
> responses, here's the plan:
>
> [...]
>  * Reimplement the COM parts (core and events) as `ffi/com'. The
>  interface of `ffi/com' will not match `mysterx' exactly; a new
>  implementation of `mysterx' will wrap `ffi/com' for non-ActiveX
>  backward compatibility, but porting from `ffi/com' to `mysterx' will
>  be encouraged.
>
>
I'm not actually using MysterX, but for what I understood, shouldn't the
above sentence read the opposite?

"... porting from `mysterx' to `ffi/com' (the new implementation) will be
encouraged."


[]'s

Rodolfo Carvalho
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20120106/bafd330d/attachment.html>