At Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:02:34 -0400, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote: > > Finally, there's the question of inference that `raco pkg install' and > > other tools perform on a string that represents a package source. > > Keeping the package-name grammar simple makes that inference more > > predictable. > > Do you have an example in mind? I can imagine permitting ":" in package > names would make this difficult, but other than that, my imagination is > failing me in coming up with something that'd make inference trickier. > > > I see what you mean, and yet "foobar.rkt" seems like a strange name for > > a Racket package. In particular, I'd expect it to be inferred as a > > filename source, instead of a package-name source, if we ever manage to > > make individual files act as packages (as some have suggested). > > That's a problem we don't have right now. But I do have the problem of a > git repo named "something.rkt" which I'd like to straightforwardly use > as a package.
Now that I think about it, we do have the problem now with "foobar.zip", which is inferred to be a file name (and I think we want to keep that). In other words, simply allowing "." in a package name would already create some amount of inference trouble/complexity. I'm sympathetic to the idea of relaxing the syntax of package names, and I started in that direction a couple of times for different characters --- but I ran into trouble each time and backed off. _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
