Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #21156: master branch updated

2010-09-28 Thread Eli Barzilay
Can we please not have this?? The whole point of having uniform names is that you can use require/provide things easily so there's no need for a library. In addition, the usual way things went so far was to write safe code, and then turn on unsafely by adding requires with dropping the prefix,

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #21156: master branch updated

2010-09-28 Thread John Clements
On Sep 28, 2010, at 8:23 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote: Can we please not have this?? The whole point of having uniform names is that you can use require/provide things easily so there's no need for a library. Sure, I don't feel strongly about it. Done. To be clear, my use case is this: I'm

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #21156: master branch updated

2010-09-28 Thread Eli Barzilay
An hour ago, John Clements wrote: On Sep 28, 2010, at 8:23 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote: Can we please not have this?? The whole point of having uniform names is that you can use require/provide things easily so there's no need for a library. Sure, I don't feel strongly about it. Done.

Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #21156: master branch updated

2010-09-28 Thread John Clements
On Sep 28, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote: An hour ago, John Clements wrote: On Sep 28, 2010, at 8:23 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote: Can we please not have this?? The whole point of having uniform names is that you can use require/provide things easily so there's no need for a library.