Yesterday, Robby Findler wrote: > This looks great to me! > > I don't have a good sense of what level of granularity is the right > one, but I naturally would have gone even finer grained with > drracket: the macro-debugger, pkg/gui, and maybe even the > gui-debugger I would have separated out. (Probably you were focused > on lower-level things first, tho.) > > Also for the macro-debugger: I think it is useful by itself, without > drracket (I would like to use it for files that in drracket's > implementation, for example). So I think there should be two > packages there: macro-debugger-standalone with the "give me a file > and show the macro debugger's result on it" interface and > macro-debugger-plugin pkg that fits into drracket.
Besides the usable-by-itself point, I think that there's a strong point for code owners... In this case the owners are very different (and my guess is that any contributions to the code you do/might make are a kind of a suggestion), so it's better to split them; and also there is no sharing of code + maintenance (which is why this point doesn't apply to core stuff). -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev