On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > 10 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote: >> They have more similarities than your message suggests I believe. >> And it is probably worth exploring that. As far as I can see a >> facet/modulet has less stuff than a package and possibly a different >> story vis a vis files in the filesystem. > > They're really unrelated -- the new thing with > facets/modulets/whatever name they get is a kind of a separately > loadable sub-module. What we were talking about is basically making > the `foo' in (require foo) be an identifier that you could define to > actually point to some random file.
Would a binding for foo affect uses like foo/bar? And would this mean going to a semantics for require specs where unbound identifiers have one meaning, and bound identifiers have another? That leads to issues with silent failures, where you try to refer to a binding but a typo leads to the wrong require instead of a syntax error. Also, right now I can do (define racket "Racket") and then (require racket) and it works fine. If require starts looking at bindings, suddenly the collection namespace becomes part of the normal Racket namespace. --Carl _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev