[racket-dev] okay to require rackunit in modules required at startup?

5 hours ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Robby Findler
> <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [*] As an example, rackunit might become dependent on drr in the
> >>> future, if it becomes a drr plugin.  The cost of that is
> >>> obvious: you need drr to use rackunit.  A possible solution to
> >>> that, if it becomes necessary, is to have another package for
> >>> the plugin, one that depends on rackunit and drr.
> >>
> >> This is already the case for rackunit.  There's a drracket tool
> >> for rackunit gui integration.
> >
> > I don't know the full story on the dependencies, but drracket
> > plugins do not make direct links; they are discovered as drracket
> > starts up and, if not present, nothing bad happens (unless two
> > plugins need each other to be present, which is possible and
> > happens in the current tree).
> 
> Right, I was trying to say that Rackunit has already gone in the
> "good" direction that Eli pointed out wrt. DrRacket integration.

Not really good if you'd want people to use ru without drr, but yes,
it's not problematic otherwise.  (Except that it would have made
John's change problematic.)

[I didn't reply when Ryan pointed this out, since there's nothing
new...]

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