At Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:38:03 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Robby Findler > <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > > Did you consider moving "#lang mzscheme" out as well? > > I've now created another pull request that does this, here: > https://github.com/plt/racket/pull/377 > > There's one remaining question. The `make-base-namespace` procedure > provided by `mzscheme` attaches the `mzscheme` module. But this pull > request removes that module, so it can't be attached or required in > this code. The alternatives are: > > 1. Just attach/require `scheme/mzscheme`. Slightly incompatible in > some corner cases. > 2. Don't remove `mzscheme` from the core. > 3. Remove `make*-namespace` from `scheme/mzscheme` and implement them > in the `mzscheme` collection in the `mzscheme` package. > > I'm currently leaning toward 3 but I'd appreciate anyone else's thoughts.
Is there some reason that `scheme/mzscheme' can't move to the "mzscheme" package (along with `racket/private/stxmz-body')? _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
