[racket-dev] Fwd: PLaneT(2): Single vs multi-collection packages

(post back to the mailing list...)

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Jay McCarthy <jay.mccarthy at gmail.com>wrote:

> My goal is to have a large xrefed documentation site of all ring-0
> packages (we are close to this) so you can look up awesome or
> slideshow-latex and then require it and have racket/DrRacket give you
> a pop up that says, "Do you want to install package <blah> to get
> this?" (I believe DrRacket does this now and we have xrepl that does
> it too). Since ring-0 guarantees no conflicts, there is always a
> unique answer to the require->package question.
>

(Btw, that sounds like a nice feature!
I'd just worry a little about the size of the docs though,
but then maybe you plan to have the docs can stay online?)

In other words, my goal is to have only package authors ever concerned

> with (a) their package names and (b) which package they are even
> getting their modules from. UNLESS, you want to use ring-1 (untested)
> or ring-2 (conflicting) packages---since using those rings is
> inconvenient, it is incentivizes authors to remove conflicts and test
> their code to get to ring-0. (In other words, I don't want any ring-1
> or 2 packages.)
>

I'm not sure how that poses problems with the use case above, but
then in ring-0, you could easily ask for packages to be correctly named?
 I believe if you want to write a package of this quality, you should take
time
to name it correctly, and adding one line in the info.rkt file is no big
deal (if
ever really needed, which I expect to be rare).
 I don't really expect programmers of ring-0 to have bad habits, my main
concern is with all the others, who certainly don't want to spend a lot of
time understanding what to do to make a package.

Laurent
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20130607/807b26f1/attachment-0001.html>