You could get very close to this by making the package catalog and naming system hierarchical rather than flat. A package `foo` would be both a package and it's own package catalog, nested within the parent catalog. Each of the `foo-lib`, `foo-doc`, and `foo-test` packages would instead be `lib`, `doc`, and `test` packages within the `foo` catalog. Federated namespaces are fantastic for this sort of problem and there's a lot of precedent for using them in package naming. The npm package system recently added "user scopes" so every user account gets their own slice of the package namespace (foo@jack and foo@jay refer to two packages both named foo but with different owners), and docker image registries do something similar.
On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 1:44:23 PM UTC-7, Jay McCarthy wrote: > > I agree that such a tool would be very useful and awesome. One > coherent thing might be a way to create a piece of data in the info > file that lists which modules & collections go in which packages in a > "virtual" way and have them split by "raco pkg", then extend that > language with the ability to splice out a submodule. > -- 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.
