Agreed. This looks good. -Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Eastlund" <c...@ccs.neu.edu> To: "Matthew Flatt" <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> Cc: dev@racket-lang.org Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 10:42:06 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [racket-dev] PLaneT(2): Single vs multi-collection packages
I vote for this change. I'll happily update my package in order to make it easier for others to contribute new ones. Carl Eastlund On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Matthew Flatt < mfl...@cs.utah.edu > wrote: I think more people need to speak up on this question --- particularly authors of existing packages, since the current proposal necessitates an update to each existing package. The proposal is to make single-package collections the default: * If a directory used as a package has no "info.rkt" file, then it is treated as a single-collection package. The single collection's name is the same as the package name (which tends to be the directory name, but it depends on how you install the package). * If a directory used as a package has an "info.rkt" file, but "info.rkt" doesn't explicitly say that the package is multi-collection, then it's still a single-collection package. The "info.rkt" file might supply a name for the single collection, instead of leaving it to the package name; supplying a name would be a requirement for ring-0 packages. For each existing package, the author would need to add a line to the package's "info.rkt" to indicate that it is a multi-collection package (or change the layout to single-collection mode, with the caveat that the package won't work with v5.3.4). Any more votes for/against? _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev