Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote on 11/30/2014 12:52 PM:
Are you saying that `data` is some kind of classification of "what this
module is about", and in this case specifically, "this module, which is part
of some more specific package, happens to be regarding general-purpose data
structures, so we're putting it over here in the `data` area of a shared
namespace hierarchy"?
Yes, the idea is that it makes sense for `data/hamt` to come from the
"hamt" package, and for `data/fector` to come from the "fector"
package (this is currently the case on pkgs.racket-lang.org).
If so, I don't understand why that would be
considered a good idea.
Because the client of these modules shouldn't have to think about
which package they belong in to use them. This gives the package
developer freedom to combine or split packages without requiring code
changes from clients.
I think this might be centralized, core-Racket-developer, thinking. I
think that some people might be trying to herd decentralized development
to build what looks then like a tidy, centralized library.
This would also explain why the new package system originally advised to
use generic names for packages, which I think is not a great match for
organic, decentralized development.
Neil V.
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
