[racket-dev] proposal: `data' collection

On Jul 2, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:

> In both of these cases,
> I think that the *proper* way to tackle the changes is to move code
> between packages (even if it keeps the same owner) -- *not* to create
> the connections and leave the code where it is.

This is good software engineering reasoning. I like that part. 

;; --- 

I still think you're trying to say 

 1. collects should be packages 
 2. packages should have module-like properties 
	(in particular, the dependence tree should be a dag) 

In a way I agree with this in principle. But, PLT acts on evidence 
that this is useful. The only use I see in your messages is an improved
distribution. 

;; --- 

For Chicago: 

1. collect evidence that size matters to anyone out there besides you

2. propose a concise (one slide, three bullets, 5 words per bullet) definition of packages 

3. show us three applications why this is useful OTHER THAN distribution/size concerns 
	(i grant you the SE reason but it's not an application)

-- Matthias