[racket-dev] new package system collections and conflicts

Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote on 11/30/2014 12:52 PM:
>> 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, the idea is that it makes sense for `data/hamt` to come from the
> "hamt" package, and for `data/fector` to come from the "fector"
> package (this is currently the case on pkgs.racket-lang.org).
>
>>   If so, I don't understand why that would be
>> considered a good idea.
> Because the client of these modules shouldn't have to think about
> which package they belong in to use them. This gives the package
> developer freedom to combine or split packages without requiring code
> changes from clients.

I think this might be centralized, core-Racket-developer, thinking. I 
think that some people might be trying to herd decentralized development 
to build what looks then like a tidy, centralized library.

This would also explain why the new package system originally advised to 
use generic names for packages, which I think is not a great match for 
organic, decentralized development.

Neil V.