On Monday, April 19, 2010, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: > Granted, using `rico' for the command-line tool instead of the name > `racket' is a little awkward, but that's yet another set of issues to > balance. The name `racket' seems long to me as a prefix, compared to > `rico', but it's not much longer. And maybe the executable currently > called `racket' (and we really have to have that standalone executable > for starting scripts, etc.) should be `racketrun' or something after > all, even though that doesn't fit with the `java' and `perl' and > `python and `ruby' precedents.
FWIW Haskell does this something like the racketrun approach so there is some precedent, but perhaps we're better following convention here (depending on how we move forward with "rico"). Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
