[racket-dev] proposal: `data' collection

On Jun 30, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> 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, [...]

And *again* you ignore the whole thing.

Read it.  It mentions August, and a solution is desperately needed.

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