Yes, I like the idea of #lang info(#lang setup/infotab) which is highly constrained, and it is an out-of-box solution. It's better to have a (get-info/file filename.rkt) as an alternative to (get-info/full infodir-path).
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote: > I generally second the idea of doing a configuration file format like > "info.rkt" (but not using that particular filename, unless your program is > tools for Racket development projects). > > An advantage of this format is that you then have a few different options > for how to use the file. Specifically, if the file format looks like > Racket code, you can use it via `read`/`read-syntax` (while setting > parameters for safety), via `dynamic-require`, or via `require`. > > And you can change your mind how to use the format later, without > requiring end users to change the documented file format they use. > > If you eventually go to `dynamic-require` or `require`, then you can add > more Racket language features to the "configuration file", and then it's an > extensibility language, or your program is a domain-specific framework. > This is also a good way to ease people into extension, and into using > Racket. > > 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. > -- 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.
