On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > There are plenty of real examples where it's sensible for different > packages to introduce modules in overlapping collections, though. > Sometimes, it's because different packages implement different facets > of a conceptual whole, such as "math-lib", "math-doc", and "math-test" > all extending the "math" collection.
Another example where this happens (and in a way that couldn't be fixed by combining packages) is with typed versions of libraries. If I release a package with the collection `foo`, and then someone else produces a typed version of it, that will probably be named either `foo/typed` (and thus be in the `foo` namespace) or `typed/foo` (and thus be in the `typed` namespace). Sam _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
