Well, that's already available via X-lib (plus possibly X-doc). I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I'm not sure that's the right rationale.
Robby On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@cs.indiana.edu>wrote: > I agree with this. In particular, I like to be able to use libraries in > testing code that the rest of the library doesn't depend on, and I'd like > to not make users install those extra libraries. > > Sam > On Oct 15, 2013 4:47 PM, "Matthew Flatt" <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > >> We have several packages "X" that imply packages "X-lib" and "X-doc" >> --- and that seems good to me. >> >> Some "X"s also imply "X-test", while other "X"s do not imply "X-test" >> (even though "X-test" exists). We should change one of those sets to be >> consistent with the other. >> >> It's important that "X-lib" and "X-test" end up in the same source >> repository, but I don't think that "X" clients necessarily need tests >> for "X". So, I suggest that "X" should not imply "X-test". >> >> Other opinions? >> >> _________________________ >> 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
