[racket-dev] new package system collections and conflicts

From: Jay McCarthy (jay.mccarthy at gmail.com)
Date: Sun Nov 30 12:30:06 EST 2014

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.


> Neil V.

Jay McCarthy

           "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>

Posted on the dev mailing list.