Jay McCarthy wrote on 03/12/2016 01:22 PM:
For my taste, I don't want to run any program on my files to "turn them into real Racket". So, I would not want to do this as a tool.
Just to be sure I communicated it... The only things I'm doing are making files `info.rkt` and `<package>.scrbl` be generated, as part of the package developer's process (by the `raco dude` commands), and never by people who are not modifying the package source. I would say that the `.rkt` files except for `info.rkt` are always "real Racket".
One of the reasons I moved back to the three-semicolon way of embedding documentation, away from McFly's Racket `(doc ...)` forms, was to eliminate the `dep` on package `mcfly`, which I recall you didn't like. Getting rid of the `mcfly` dependency has the small cost of having to keep regenerating a `.scrbl` file whenever the `.rkt` file(s) are modified.
Maybe there someday will be a clean-looking way that we can add ordered embedded chunks of Scribble to a documentation submodule (for document narrative ordering, not just docstring-type identifier associations). Without creating an additional dependency that people won't like. I don't want to get into that right now, and am just going back to using simple three-semicolons, like a champ.
On the other hand, I would like to see us unify submodules and collections into a single concept and have consistent require path rules. For instance...
My initial reaction is to like these ideas, though I haven't thought through it yet. I'll be interested to see what you guys do.
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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
