[racket-dev] new package system collections and conflicts

On Sunday, November 30, 2014, Neil Van Dyke <neil at neilvandyke.org> wrote:

>
> 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.


I do not know what a third party package is.


>
>
>> 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"?


Yes, although this is just for the benefit of search and reading docs; it
has no technical enforcement.


> If so, I don't understand why that would be considered a good idea.


It is a principle to create general purpose reusable code in the package
ecosystem rather than little archipelagos with lots of private code that
gets duplicated and has clever names.

Jay


>
> Neil V.
>
>

-- 
Jay McCarthy
http://jeapostrophe.github.io

           "Wherefore, be not weary in well-doing,
      for ye are laying the foundation of a great work.
And out of small things proceedeth that which is great."
                          - D&C 64:33
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20141130/8e953c4d/attachment.html>