On Aug 25, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>
> I agree that it's basically the same when done right, which is why I
> initially suggested the simpler solution. I think the one benefit of
> these "export sets" is that they make it a language abstraction
> rather than a convention of where to put files.
IMO, the high level problem is where to put these things.
But thinking about it more, these sets seem completely equivalent to
adding some "racket/bindings-sets/require-provide.rkt" file with
#lang racket/base
(provide require provide blah-in blah-out ...)
which can now be used just the same, and more files could encapsulate
other sets.
(It still suffers from the above problem though, so I don't think it
should actually be done. Maybe if there was a way to automatically
test that these files are in sync with the sets they're supposed to
provide.)
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
