Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > > On Jan 31, 2017, at 12:37 AM, WarGrey Gyoudmon Ju > wrote: > > > > Hello. > > > > This is one of the culture shocks that a new Racketeer would face, and > so was I. > > But this

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

> On Jan 31, 2017, at 12:37 AM, 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

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

I agree that in the TOC of the docs it would probably be better to separate third party packages, maybe simply as a dedicated section or add '(contributed package)' next to it. On 30 Jan 2017 9:13 pm, "Matthew Butterick" wrote: On Jan 30, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Leif Andersen

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

Putting the logo in the corner or line under the title solves only half of the problem, IMHO. Yes, you can determine which packages are core and which are community, however you still can't differentiate at a glance which is which. Although it is an improvement, it is still a pain in practice

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

So, I really don't care how it work. Logo is fine, seperate website is fine. Checkboxes that lets users say what packages come in are fine. Yelp reviews are fine (although if we go down that route can we also add Edit buttons. ;) ) My only concern is that at the moment, anyone can publish

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

Le lundi 30 janvier 2017 22:13:57 UTC+1, Matthew Butterick a écrit : > Recently we added a Racket logo to the upper right of the public doc pages. > We could do something where this logo changed depending on whether the > package belonged to core or community or whatever. Then we wouldn't need

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

> On Jan 30, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Leif Andersen wrote: > > I don't think that the solution is to make core packages first class, and > community ones second class. That looses the spirit of what we're going for > here. But maybe we could have in our documentation a way

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

> An alternative approach which probably takes less effort is to just have two > documentation pages. One for core packages, and one for community packages. > Obviously we should still make 3rd party packages feel like first class build > in stuff, but if we just host them at a different URL,

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

FWIW, I have to support Ethan here. (At least a little bit). I really how user installed packages (and collections) in Racket feel like first class citizens. Its very nice, both that its rewarding when I make a new package, but also in terms of searching for documentation and whatnot. However,

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

Curse my sausage fingers! That last send was unintentional. I've deleted it from the online Google Groups forum for the sake of future subscribers. I can understand wanting to minimize the distinction and in some ways make all core language, standard libraries, and community libraries equal. For

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

I like the current structure of the docs but Ethan's comments reminded of recent blog posts by Eric Raymond (of "Cathedral and the Bazaar" fame), who surprisingly advocates against "swarm design". The posts are about Rust but maybe it's something to keep in mind if the package system gets much

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

-- Ethan Estrada | CTO & COO M: 801-669-1598 | E: et...@metapipe.com The Startup Building | 560 S 100 W STE 1 (sent from my phone) On Jan 29, 2017 06:45, "Matthew Flatt" wrote: At Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:51:43 -0800 (PST), Ethan Estrada wrote: > My only real beef with the Racket

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

Honestly I've never even thought about this. I just look at the "require" form at the top of the docs. Since I always use racket/base as my main language, everything feels like extra. On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > At Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:51:43 -0800

Re: [racket-users] Package layout in docs

At Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:51:43 -0800 (PST), Ethan Estrada wrote: > My only real beef with the Racket docs are the layout of packages; > there is no clear distinction between docs for standard library items > and docs for community provided libs. That's intentional. I'd say that the absence of a

[racket-users] Package layout in docs

I have been reading the docs a lot lately as I have been building a couple internal tools at my work using Racket. It has been awesome. The docs are some of the best I have used, second only to maybe the Python standard docs (for reasons largely unrelated to what I'm posting about here). My

[racket-users] Package layout in docs

I have been reading the docs a lot lately as I have been building a couple internal tools at my work using Racket. It has been awesome. The docs are some of the best I have used, second only to maybe the Python standard docs (for reasons largely unrelated to what I'm posting about here). My