[racket-dev] proposal: `data' collection

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> On Jun 30, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
>> > On Jun 30, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>> >> > At the Northeastern PLT lunch today, I proposed adding a top-level
>> >> > `data' collection, for all manner of data structures.
>> >>
>> >> Based on the discussion,
>> >
>> > There was no discussion.  I posted the main problem with that, which
>> > you never replied to.
>>
>> I don't believe you pointed out a problem.  There was discussion was
>> of what sense of "core" we mean, which I clarified. As demonstrated by
>> the `syntax' collections, this doesn't pose a problem.
>
> Below is what wrote, which you replied to as if the only issue is the
> name of the collection.  The name is just a symptom -- which will go
> away *if* we have a solution to separating collections.  If not, then
> such a generic collection will be a problem regardless of the name.
>
> And just in case you'll want to ignore the actual content of this:
> (a) I'm not objecting to `data' as a name, (b) I *want* a good
> solution for this problem, and have wanted one for a while, (c) if
> there is a solution for this, then `data' (while not great) works
> as well as in the Haskell example you mentioned, but as things stand,
> it is a problem regardless of the name.

So, you object to all possible manifestations of such a collection,
preferring to wait until the concept of collections is restructured,
which may or may not happen at some indeterminate point in the future,
although you'd like it to happen eventually, but there is no timetable
for such a restructuring.

Is that a fair summary of your position?
-- 
sam th
samth at ccs.neu.edu