On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > The explanation and indirection looks right to me.
Ok, I'll do that. > There's a tension between documentation that explains everything that > should be explained and documentation that succinctly and clearly > explains what most people need most of the time. Our > guide-versus-reference organization tries to manage that tension, and I > think it's sensible for `racket/base' and `typed/racket' to share a > guide-level description of `for'. At the same time, we don't yet have a > good way for a user to pick between guide-level or reference-level > information; I think it would solve the immediate problem and much more. I agree -- Typed Racket has a similar problem, since there's also a (much less comprehensive) TR guide. -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
