On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > On Jun 24, Matthias Felleisen wrote: >> On Jun 23, 2010, at 5:37 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> >> > To clarify, I'm proposing that this be a part of the "core" >> >> I agree with this goal and the name. > > [BTW, when I talked about part of the core earlier, the meaning was > the actual `racket' collection -- the area where it's difficult to get > into because you're running into all kinds of circularity problems. > IIUC, Sam's meaning is more of a "core distribution", which is much > easier to deal with.]
Since I'm proposing that `racket/set' move to `data/set', that implies that `racket' will depend on `data', and thus that `data' will have to be in "core" in every sense. Although I'm not sure why "the dependencies of the `racket' collection" is the right definition of "core". For example, I think the `net' collection should be in any definition of "core". Further, there aren't any circularity issues with `racket' depending on other collections - it already depends on the `syntax' collection, for example. >> We could call it 'collections' hierarchy as in Java, but I don't >> think that this is a good name. Ideally, I'd like to call it >> data-structure but that isn't a good path element. > > +1 on both. `data' does seem to me better than both of these, but I > still dislike it since it's a vague name like "etc". I don't think it's possible to come up with a non-generic name that encompasses sets, lists, vectors, queues, tables, etc. In the absence of a better suggestion, I'm sticking with `data'. -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
