[racket-dev] new package system collections and conflicts

Jay McCarthy wrote on 11/30/2014 12:13 PM:
> The documentation cited is making clear that there is NO connection 
> between the name of a package and the provided modules. There is no 
> such thing as a package namespace.

I'd really like there to be.  For third-party packages.

>
> Packages may find it convenient to build and provide reusable 
> functionality with many organizational names. This is particularly 
> true of "data", as many packages may have useful data structures.
>
> Of course, as such support code becomes very useful and developed, it 
> makes sense to sprin it off into its own package.

Are you saying that `data` is some kind of classification of "what this 
module is about", and in this case specifically, "this module, which is 
part of some more specific package, happens to be regarding 
general-purpose data structures, so we're putting it over here in the 
`data` area of a shared namespace hierarchy"?  If so, I don't understand 
why that would be considered a good idea.

Neil V.