What does being "so fundamental" have to do with being in the core vs being in a package? We should not confuse putting things in packages with making them second-class concepts. We can put racket/sandbox in a package without necessarily making it any less fundamental to Racket.
Carl Eastlund On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu>wrote: > > In general I agree with Robby on "the definition of the core as "minimum > stuff to get pkgs running" and we should be picky about what goes in". BUT, > as a small addendum, I think the idea of sandboxing is so fundamental, I'd > rather see the idea (not necessarily the current implementation) become a > part of the core. > > -- Matthias > > > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
