[racket] A question about code-style (and memory usage)

Robby Findler wrote at 07/26/2011 02:02 PM:
> It would be nice to be able to use some of those aliases without
> having to pull in huge piles of stuff, tho. Is there a way to make
> that happen? racket/aliases/<x> where <x> is the same as racket/<x>,
> but with aliases added in? (Or maybe we just add all the aliases to
> racket/<x> directly? Or maybe racket/<x>/aliases?)
>   

If you're speaking of adding new "#lang" names for this extension, I 
think that's a slippery slope that doesn't scale to the combinations of 
multiple incremental language extensions of equal importance that we'll 
wish to add.

I think that extensions like this are what "require" and the monolithic 
"#lang racket" are for.

For this extension, I'd favor a "racket/cute" (or whatever people want 
to call it) module that is included in "#lang racket" language but not 
in "#lang racket/base".

Or even put the extension in "#lang racket/base", if that's deemed the 
only alternative to creating additional "#lang" combination names.  
Anything but more "#lang" combination names.

(I think it's already a bit awkward how Typed Racket uses "#lang" 
combination names, but TR's use is understandable right now, and TR is 
of special importance.)

-- 
http://www.neilvandyke.org/