On 07/20/2012 04:36 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Vincent St-Amour<stamo...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
At Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:17:22 -0400,
as...@racket-lang.org wrote:
3582b57 Asumu Takikawa<as...@racket-lang.org> 2012-07-20 15:10
:
| Move mzlib/defmacro => racket/defmacro
I'm not sure this belongs in `racket'. This is not a Racket feature.
It's closer to a CL compatibility library.
How about having a `compatibility' collect, which would include this and
things like `racket/package' (compatibility with Chez) and `racket/mpair'
(compatibility with Scheme)? It would be harder to confuse these things
with blessed Racket features.
Vincent
+1
For backwards (ahem) compatibility, we would have to maintain the
racket/package and racket/mpair names as aliases, but changing
existing uses of them to the new name and making the racket/
documentation point to compatibility/ would help make the point.
-1
I think proliferating indirections and aliases is just as bad as (or
maybe worse than) proliferating top-level collections. If it's in mzlib/
and it's still really useful, move it to racket/ (or data/, etc). If it
isn't (eg, mzlib/defmacro, perhaps mzlib/thread), then just leave it alone.
Ryan
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
