On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote: > Robby Findler wrote at 07/26/2011 03:12 PM: >> >> If we instead had (require racket/set/aliases), then I could use >> non-ASCII stuff without the big footprint. >> > > Oh, I understand now. Yes, "<module>/aliases" modules seem reasonable to > me, if there is some good reason that the aliases can't just be defined in > the respective "<module>". > > If do a "(require racket/set)", I really don't mind if the standard set > symbols are also included as aliases in the module, so long as there are > corresponding 7-bit ASCII names that I can use instead. I'd think they'd > take up relatively negligible resources, and they're not likely to collide > with any other uses for the symbols. In the rare situation they do collide, > one can do a renaming import or selective import.
That sounds right to me too. Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
