Just to be clear, I agree that we want to minimize cycles. I don't think that actually prohibiting cycles is going to be workable, though, especially at the level of documentation.
Cycles at the level of "-lib" suggest to me that the organization should be improved. Cycles at the level of "-doc" suggest to me that the documentation is thorough and helpful. At Wed, 29 May 2013 14:31:08 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote: > 20 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > > > Yes. Package dependencies can be cyclic (unlike module > > dependencies), and packages can have cyclic build dependencies > > without cyclic run dependencies. > > (*sigh*) So the idea of acyclic package graph as module containers is > dead? > > But to explain my sigh -- I'm not surprised given my other comment > (sent prematurely); I just hope to see it still as a desirable goal. > Maybe some quick package-level graph to show cycles and try to reduce > them at easy points? > > (I think that still having lots of cycles will make things more > difficult with packages, so that will be one form of discouragement, > but there will also be problems that are harder to deal with.) > > -- > ((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
