Alexis King wrote on 07/03/2015 06:33 PM:
Perhaps this isn’t applicable in this case, but may I suggest a less-common alternative: no prefixing at all? If you put all the commands into a separate module, users of the module can use ‘prefix-in’ to choose whatever prefix they prefer.
For reusable Racket packages, intended to be intermixed with other Racket packages in arbitrary programs, I think Racket actually prefers provided names to be globally unique among all packages. (Look at how documentation searches work, for example.)
However, for a more closed world of a particular application (where you're providing the IDE and hardware and everything), making more "generic" names (e.g., `get`) do very application-specific things might be appropriate. Especially if you make your own `#lang` for it (which `#lang` would likely provide a combination of `racket/base` or `racket`, together with your generic-looking application-specific identifiers). At the same time as your `#lang`, you can separately have an application-specific reusable library intended for use with the rare Racket program that does not use your `#lang`, in which case it's more OK to make those programmers use `prefix-in` and have trouble with documentation lookups. IMHO.
Neil V. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
