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

I was thinking of libraries, accessed via require. If we just had
(require racket/aliases), then that would be tantamount to doing #lang
racket (probably), given all of the dependencies that it would pull
in. If we instead had (require racket/set/aliases), then I could use
non-ASCII stuff without the big footprint.

Robby

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Neil Van Dyke <neil at neilvandyke.org> wrote:
> 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/
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
>