[racket-dev] experiment reorganizing the repo into packages

From: Matthew Flatt (mflatt at cs.utah.edu)
Date: Wed May 29 14:51:21 EDT 2013

Just to be clear, I agree that we want to minimize cycles.

I don't think that actually prohibiting cycles is going to be workable,
though, especially at the level of documentation.

Cycles at the level of "-lib" suggest to me that the organization
should be improved.

Cycles at the level of "-doc" suggest to me that the documentation is
thorough and helpful.

At Wed, 29 May 2013 14:31:08 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 20 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > 
> > Yes. Package dependencies can be cyclic (unlike module
> > dependencies), and packages can have cyclic build dependencies
> > without cyclic run dependencies.
> (*sigh*)  So the idea of acyclic package graph as module containers is
> dead?
> But to explain my sigh -- I'm not surprised given my other comment
> (sent prematurely); I just hope to see it still as a desirable goal.
> Maybe some quick package-level graph to show cycles and try to reduce
> them at easy points?
> (I think that still having lots of cycles will make things more
> difficult with packages, so that will be one form of discouragement,
> but there will also be problems that are harder to deal with.)
> -- 
>           ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
>                     http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

Posted on the dev mailing list.