On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote: > Thank you for going to the extra effort to share open source packages. > > BTW, while there's always been motive, since the dawn of programming, for an > individual project or person to have a "<project-or-person>'s collection of > utilities", I think that *reuse* value generally increases when we break > this up into fairly independent topical collection. > > Sometimes this results in packages with only one procedure, such as > "http://www.neilvandyke.org/racket/canonicalize-path/";, but which I could > imagine wanting to use without any of the much more specific > "http://www.neilvandyke.org/racket/mediafile/"; code for which it was > originally written.
Yep, 100% agreed that 'utils.rkt' is a bad thing. If you check the description in the README.md it says "utils.rkt => overly bloated collection of random things. Should be split up." I've been shopping around for tuits and I'll do the splitting when I find a good supplier. Aside from 'utils.rkt' and 'list-utils.rkt' I think the others are fairly reasonable. Dave > -- 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.
