[racket] A question about code-style (and memory usage)

Four minutes ago, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Robby Findler wrote at 07/26/2011 02:02 PM:
> > It would be nice to be able to use some of those aliases without
> > having to pull in huge piles of stuff, tho. Is there a way to make
> > that happen? racket/aliases/<x> where <x> is the same as
> > racket/<x>, but with aliases added in? (Or maybe we just add all
> > the aliases to racket/<x> directly? Or maybe racket/<x>/aliases?)
> 
> If you're speaking of adding new "#lang" names for this extension, I
> think that's a slippery slope that doesn't scale to the combinations
> of multiple incremental language extensions of equal importance that
> we'll wish to add.

I completely agree, and ...

> (I think it's already a bit awkward how Typed Racket uses "#lang" 
> combination names, but TR's use is understandable right now, and TR is 
> of special importance.)

that's a good reason.  Consider that there's chances that a similar
thing will apply to the lazy language, and possibly yet another for
lazy&typed, and we're getting N modules for each "real" module, and N
grows exponentially.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!