On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>>> 10 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
They have more similarities than your message suggests I believe.
And it is pr
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> 10 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
>>> They have more similarities than your message suggests I believe.
>>> And it is probably worth exploring that. As far as I can see a
>>> facet
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 10 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
>> They have more similarities than your message suggests I believe.
>> And it is probably worth exploring that. As far as I can see a
>> facet/modulet has less stuff than a package and possibly a differe
10 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> They have more similarities than your message suggests I believe.
> And it is probably worth exploring that. As far as I can see a
> facet/modulet has less stuff than a package and possibly a different
> story vis a vis files in the filesystem.
They're reall
They have more similarities than your message suggests I believe. And it is
probably worth exploring that. As far as I can see a facet/modulet has less
stuff than a package and possibly a different story vis a vis files in the
filesystem.
Robby
On Wednesday, July 27, 2011, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>
I don't see them as overlapping, but you may understand them different
than I do.
The way I see modules/facets is that 'racket/list.rkt' will have a
'default' facet and a 'testing' facet and a 'documentation' facet, so
that each use can be syntactically close but separately loadable.
The way I se
Bullet point 2 seems like it may overlap (in a practical, "what do I
use today" sort of a way) with Matthew's modulelet construct. Both
group modules together, both provide independently loadable things.
Do we really want/need both of these?
Robby
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jay McCarthy w
It's probably just me, but this readme is a bit too dense.
[I know the first bit. That's why I pushed the two-step.
I know a bit more from Eli. But that's an accident.]
On Jul 26, 2011, at 5:49 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> Eli and I had a very useful conversation last night and we realized
> tha
Eli and I had a very useful conversation last night and we realized
that a lot of the ideal package system we are imagining is within our
reach very quickly. Today I made a demonstration of our ideas:
https://github.com/jeapostrophe/exp/tree/master/pkgs
There's a README there. Once you read it,
9 matches
Mail list logo