I like the idea. How about listing the "ring" of each package? It's a more precise distinction than core/non-core (which probably reflects history more than blessedness), and also highlights quality libraries that don't happen to be part of the core.
Vincent On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:04:56 -0600, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > > Possibly related: in the all-inclusive docs.racket-lang.org > documentation index, some indication of core vs. user-contributed might > help users decide which package to click upon first. > > (I realize things are moving towards more-decentralized, but the "core?" > predicate is one of the easiest predictors of quality/blessedness to > implement right now, technically and socially. I don't recommend star > ratings, usage metrics, or centralized curating right now. I realize > that "core?" predicate will work against SXML-related packages, but I'll > survive.) > > Neil V. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/56CB77F8.9080106%40neilvandyke.org. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/m21t7vpn17.wl-stamourv%40eecs.northwestern.edu. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
