Fundamental to me is Robby's "necessary to install packages". One day we may 
wish to offer sandboxing for the installation of packages. 









On Jun 26, 2013, at 8:51 AM, Carl Eastlund wrote:

> 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

Reply via email to