Why does it not compile? Do you mean it doesn't compile to the same byte codes?
On Mar 12, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote: > Sorry Matthias, I don't think I understand your question. > > At the bytecode level, it would be "easy", so we could change the > distribution scripts to do that. > > At the source level, it's not really possible because of macros that > generate code in a submodule. > > My personal taste is that it is bad to ship .rkt that doesn't compile, > but I'd also like a future where we don't ship .rkt > > Jay > > On 3/12/12, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >> >> On Mar 12, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote: >> >>> The current demodularizer would do that. Presumably we could make a >>> tool that operated on a single module's zo and removed such >>> submodules. The main problem would be that the source is >>> un-compilable. >> >> >> Meaning? Removing docs and tests shouldn't leave the functional part in bad >> shape >> >> >>> >>> Jay >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Matthias Felleisen >>> <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, dependencies abound if we include tests and doc in the same module. >>>> At the same time it is good practice to have things together. >>>> >>>> Can't this problem be solved with module-flattening tools? From what I >>>> can tell, these test and doc modules could be dropped leaving the running >>>> residual, which could be bundled. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> >>> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University >>> http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay >>> >>> "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 >> >> > > > -- > Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> > Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University > http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay > > "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev