On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 01:37:41PM +0800, WarGrey Gyoudmon Ju wrote: > Hello. > > This is one of the culture shocks that a new Racketeer would face, and so > was I. > But this statement makes it clear to me: Racket is an operating system that > pretend to a programming language;
Much like emacs, also based on Lisp. It's a wonderful operating system and user-interface for machines with just an old-style characters-only CRT. And it too is based on Lisp. > > Yes, it may totally be a kind of over reading here. > > Say, I do not care if a manual page is the one shipped with unix > distribution or installed by user, same to shell commands and shared > objects, all entries should globally unique. The important distinctions are the level of maturity of the API, its long-term stablity and the availability of maintainers to fix problems if they should arise. -- hendrik > > Okay, the documentation system is a little different here, it can be > provided with a different front page, and obviously there is no way to > satisfy all. > Actually I am afraid of where to insert the entry of my package as well. > > Of my preference, I would suggest putting status icons (or even emojis) in > front of every entry in the index page based on the ring system. > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Philip McGrath <phi...@philipmcgrath.com> > wrote: > > > I was also going to suggest the ring system as a way of giving more > > information without imposing an unnecessary artificial distinction. In > > general I'm enthusiastic about the benefits of not having a sharp dividing > > line, but it would be useful to show more clearly in the documentation > > which packages have been vetted to "ring zero" standards. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Jack Firth <jackhfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Rather than splitting "core packages" from "community packages", what if > >> we used the package ring system? [1] We could establish a way for the > >> Racket community to bless packages with "ring zero" status, then provide a > >> --catalog argument to Scribble to lookup ring information in when deciding > >> how to style package documentation. The docs would remain unified, we'd > >> have a centralized place to curate packages, and there's no artificial > >> barrier that prevents user-contributed packages from living alongside > >> main-distribution packages. While we were talking about "core" and non-"core"packages, there was controversy. Now that we have changed words, and are talking about "rings", we seem to be happier. What a difference a word makes! Or is there a technical distinction I am missing? > >> > >> [1] http://docs.racket-lang.org/pkg/Future_Plans.html?q=ring > >> -- hendrik -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
