I think Eli is saying that it would create a "bad" dependency where "badness" isn't something that is easy to say precisely what it is, but the rough idea is that there is a hierarchy of modules (ie a grouping of modules into levels of a tree) and dependencies should go one direction. Making drracket require rackunit would cross this hierarchy with a link in the wrong direction (I think).
In general, we're not careful enough with the way we've organized the tree so things are a bit of a rat's nest. Part of the problem is that we don't have good tools to help us clean things up, but the larger problem is that we've just been growing for N years without spending much time cleaning up this particular aspect of things. Robby On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:18 PM, John Clements <cleme...@brinckerhoff.org> wrote: > > On Jun 28, 2011, at 10:52 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote: > >> An hour and a half ago, John Clements wrote: >>> In certain places, I know that we're trying to be careful to >>> minimize 'require's that occur as part of DrRacket startup. Is >>> 'rackunit' something we're trying to avoid? Specifically, I have old >>> unit tests in collects/stepper/private/shared.rkt that I'd like to >>> revive as rackunit tests. >> >> Adding this is a bad idea -- but size is not the problem -- the >> redundant dependency is. > > The word "redundant" suggests that it's already required... either you meant > something like "extraneous", or else I just plain misunderstood. Can you give > me another sentence or two? > > John > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev