On 09/30/2011 05:51 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
If someone wouldn't mind a recap... are the questions the following?
1. When to retire the old implementation (not necessarily the interface)
of old library called "plot".
No question here: we're retiring it immediately. The C code has been a
thorn in our side for some time.
In LOC, we're replacing 15000 lines of C + 4000 lines of Racket glue
(and various build messes) with 7000 lines of pure Racket that does a
lot more.
2. Whether to call the new library "plot" (rather than, say, "plot2" or
"newimprovedsuperplot2000").
Yep. That's part of the main question.
3. Whether the new library will provide a compatibility layer of some
kind to support old code using old "plot" interface.
No question here, either. It will.
4. If a compatibility layer, whether old code using the compatibility
layer will work as-is, or need changes (e.g., not all features
implemented, doesn't work quite the same, "require" has to change from
"plot" to "plot/compat").
Right. This is the other part of the main question. The answer to this
depends on the answer to #2.
If the answer to #2 is "the new library is called 'plot'", then the
answer to #4 is "you have to change (require plot) to (require
plot/compat)". And then everything should work.
If the answer to #2 is "the new library is called
'newimprovedsuperplot2000", then the answer to #4 is "everything should
work".
Of course, everything might not quite work. The pixels are different
(e.g. you might have to change a line width to get the look you want)
and there may be something I overlooked.
5. Whether the old implementation of "plot" will move to PLaneT,
regardless of whatever happens with the new library and compatibility
layers.
Can PLaneT packages come with C code?
Neil T
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
