On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > >> What I'd like is to have single-collection being the default [...] >> >> So here is a demo patch attached to precise what I mean (without >> test, would have taken me way too much time). Because it considers >> that single-collections are the default, it is backward incompatible. >> If info.rkt exists, it looks for 'multi-collection, and otherwise >> looks for the 'collection-name string. > > I could go along with this, as long as (most?) everyone agrees, and as > long as package authors are willing to update existing packages.
I am *very* strongly in favor of this -- I'd rather have single-collection packages than multi-collection packages, if forced to choose. I'm very glad that you and Laurent have done the work here. I'd be happy to update all of my packages. Currently, of my 9 packages on pkg.racket-lang.org, 8 are single collection, and 1 splices into the existing `data` collection (and has a second collection to work around a now-fixed limitation. In the interests of data, I looked at all of the packages on pkg.racket-lang.org marked as recently updated (6 of them) as well as the first 10 in alphabetical order. Of these, all but 3 have a single collection, 1 has some test code in the `tests` collection, 1 has an additional `example` collection, and 1 has an additional `attic` collection that doesn't have any .rkt files to avoid the code there ever being compiled. I think this suggests that single-collection is the right default. > If we go that way, then I'd characterize a single-collection package > without 'single-collection' in "info.rkt" as a low-quality package, but > a low-quality package is a fine starting point for a high-quality > package. Would this characterization be something reflected in any of the software, or just a recommendation we make to packagers? Sam _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
