<div dir="ltr">I've been using plot heavily for <a href="https://github.com/florence/convex-hulls" target="_blank">https://github.com/florence/convex-hulls</a>, which pulls a bitmap% from the snip% to render it as a gif. As long at the Plot object can get me a bitmap% or its underlying vector, I would love the new interface. or maybe I should just be using `plot-pict`... <div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:35 PM Neil Toronto <<a href="mailto:neil.toronto@gmail.com" target="_blank">neil.toronto@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Plot has been converted to Typed Racket in the upcoming Racket 6.2. I'm strongly considering taking this opportunity to improve the API. The change is backward-incompatible, however, so I need input from those of you who use Plot a lot. In particular, recent experience with Pict3D makes it clear that the type of the `plot` function shouldn't be this: (-> (Treeof (U nonrenderer renderer2d)) ... (U Void (Instance Snip%))) but should be this instead: (-> (Treeof (U nonrenderer renderer2d)) ... Plot) where a `Plot` instance is a value that can be queried for its properties (such as the legend, plot bounds, ticks, etc.) and just happens to print in DrRacket as an interactive snip. The type of `plot3d` would be changed to return `Plot3D` instances. Casual uses wouldn't see any change at all. However, functions that receive or return plots, *which also put contracts on plots*, would have to change to use `plot?` instead of (is-a?/c snip%), or use (require plot/snip), a new compatibility module, instead of (require plot). How many programs of yours would this change break? Any objections? Any suggestions? Neil ⊥ ____________________ Racket Users list: <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/users" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/users</a> </blockquote></div></div>