On Jul 2, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> In both of these cases,
> I think that the *proper* way to tackle the changes is to move code
> between packages (even if it keeps the same owner) -- *not* to create
> the connections and leave the code where it is.
This is good software engineering reasoning. I like that part.
;; ---
I still think you're trying to say
1. collects should be packages
2. packages should have module-like properties
(in particular, the dependence tree should be a dag)
In a way I agree with this in principle. But, PLT acts on evidence
that this is useful. The only use I see in your messages is an improved
distribution.
;; ---
For Chicago:
1. collect evidence that size matters to anyone out there besides you
2. propose a concise (one slide, three bullets, 5 words per bullet) definition
of packages
3. show us three applications why this is useful OTHER THAN distribution/size
concerns
(i grant you the SE reason but it's not an application)
-- Matthias
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
