[racket-dev] [plt] Push #24958: master branch updated

Yes, that makes sense. future-visualizer/trace seems best (especially
since future-visualizer will re-export all of
future-visualizer/trace).

Robby

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> If you mean that a connection to the runtime system implies being in
> the "racket" collection, I'd say that isn't necessarily so. (The "ffi"
> collection relies on a connection to the run-time system, for example.)
> So, it would make sense to me to move that to "future-visualizer", too.
>
> I can also see how you might want to keep the trace support available
> separate from the visualizer, in which case `racket/future/trace' seems
> better than merging it into `racket/future'. But I still think that
> `future-visualizer/trace' is better for now, and it could be moved back
> out if there's ever actually another consumer of the library.
>
> At Wed, 11 Jul 2012 07:57:20 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
>> There are two pieces to the visualizer: one part extracts traces from
>> a computation and the other part shows them. The trace-extraction part
>> requires a connection to the runtime system and is, I believe,
>> currently in racket/future/trace. Should that be moved into
>> racket/future, or kept as a separate piece in racket/future/trace? (Or
>> something else?)
>>
>> Robby