On Sunday, November 30, 2014, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote:
> > Jay McCarthy wrote on 11/30/2014 12:13 PM: > >> The documentation cited is making clear that there is NO connection >> between the name of a package and the provided modules. There is no such >> thing as a package namespace. >> > > I'd really like there to be. For third-party packages. I do not know what a third party package is. > > >> Packages may find it convenient to build and provide reusable >> functionality with many organizational names. This is particularly true of >> "data", as many packages may have useful data structures. >> >> Of course, as such support code becomes very useful and developed, it >> makes sense to sprin it off into its own package. >> > > Are you saying that `data` is some kind of classification of "what this > module is about", and in this case specifically, "this module, which is > part of some more specific package, happens to be regarding general-purpose > data structures, so we're putting it over here in the `data` area of a > shared namespace hierarchy"? Yes, although this is just for the benefit of search and reading docs; it has no technical enforcement. > If so, I don't understand why that would be considered a good idea. It is a principle to create general purpose reusable code in the package ecosystem rather than little archipelagos with lots of private code that gets duplicated and has clever names. Jay > > Neil V. > > -- Jay McCarthy http://jeapostrophe.github.io "Wherefore, be not weary in well-doing, for ye are laying the foundation of a great work. And out of small things proceedeth that which is great." - D&C 64:33
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev