Yesterday, Matthew Flatt wrote:
We already have a system for constructing a script that can move
files around and adjust content as needed: git.
The script that I'm talking about *would* be in the repository, of
course. It will essentially become a replacement for the distribution
specs --
Yesterday, Eric Dobson wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Jay McCarthy jay.mccar...@gmail.com wrote:
In my tree, I have 20M of compiled code and 13M of source. I like
the idea of a reduction of about 50% in size of downloads.
I'm not sure if something on the order of 10M is something
At Wed, 22 May 2013 14:50:41 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
That's true, but the downside of changing the structure and having
files and directories move post structure change will completely
destroy the relevant edit history of the files, since it will not be
carried over to the repos once it's
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Wed, 22 May 2013 14:50:41 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
That's true, but the downside of changing the structure and having
files and directories move post structure change will completely
destroy the relevant edit
I agree that 363 to 28 would be a great win. But you seem to be
describing the difference between Full Racket and core racket, not the
difference between binary and source.
For binary vs source, I think you are providing a good argument for
the usefulness of a no source distribution. Some people
Some modules have macros which expand into identifiers that are not
exported, as they want to protect those bindings. TR currently has the
following code which allows it to generate an identifier which is
free-identifier=? to what would appear in the output of the macros.
define
6 matches
Mail list logo
