On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > More Racket plans for discussion: > > * Some of us have discussed collapsing `setup-plt', `mzc', `planet', > `plt-help' and (in case I've overlooked any) other miscellaneous > programming tools into a single `rico' executable. > > The `rico' program will take a command name, similar to `svn' and > other tools. For example, `setup-plt' would become `rico setup', and > `mzc' or `mzc --make' would become `rico make'. > > We could further collapse `mzscheme' into `rico run', or we could > have just `racket' instead of `rico'. An advantage of separating > `racket' and `rico' is that `racket' can keep the command-line > syntax of `mzscheme'; for example `#! racket' will work for Unix > scripts. It may also be better to keep the run-time system separate > from development tools.
I like rico and racket. I like the idea of runtime vs dev tools. > > * The file suffix for a Racket program could be ".rkt", but you > shouldn't have to change existing code that uses ".ss" either as a > file name or in a module reference. > > We're not entirely sure how to achieve that second part, but here's > one idea that might work: In module paths names, ".ss" will be > equivalent and normalized to ".rkt". The module-name resolver, > meanwhile, will convert ".rkt" to ".ss" if only a ".ss" file is > present. So, you can migrate from ".ss" to ".rkt" at either the > definition or use of a module, independent of the other side. I like short extensions. So I prefer .rkt over .racket. But I won't fork if we go with something else :P > > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev > -- Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://teammccarthy.org/jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev