Re: [racket-dev] single-collection packages

2013-06-26 Thread Laurent
(looks like I'm misunderstanding this option. Forget about it.) On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Laurent wrote: > Much better indeed, but maybe there is still some redundancy left with the > `setup-collects' option? > http://docs.racket-lang.org/pkg/metadata.html > > Laurent > > > On Tue, Jun

Re: [racket-dev] single-collection packages

2013-06-26 Thread Laurent
Much better indeed, but maybe there is still some redundancy left with the `setup-collects' option? http://docs.racket-lang.org/pkg/metadata.html Laurent On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > +1 > > On Jun 25, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > > On Tue,

Re: [racket-dev] single-collection packages

2013-06-25 Thread Matthias Felleisen
+1 On Jun 25, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: >> >> So, I think it's better to define `collection': > > [snip] > > I think this is a definite improvement. > > Sam > _ > Racket Developers list: > h

Re: [racket-dev] single-collection packages

2013-06-25 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > So, I think it's better to define `collection': [snip] I think this is a definite improvement. Sam _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev

[racket-dev] single-collection packages

2013-06-25 Thread Matthew Flatt
I had suggested a `multi-collection?' definition in "info.rkt" to designate a multi-collection package, but I don't like having `single-collection' and `multi-collection?' (e.g., what happens if you define then in a conflicting way?). So, I think it's better to define `collection': * (define co