On Nov 7, Ryan Culpepper wrote: > > (Infamous Ryan-Analogy: There are two ways to increase social > interaction. Encourage people to barge into others' personal spaces, > or encourage everyone to spend more time in public spaces. I'm going > for the latter.)
The mistake here is "collection" = "personal space", an equation that fails in a spectacular way when a collection's owner dumps it and some victim becomes its new owner. > > See above. What needs fixing is for people to start looking > > beyond their collections -- regardless of a new collection. (And > > you can summarize my above concern as: if this is not fixed, then > > we haven't done anything besides shuffle some code around -- so > > now people still don't care, and the code is messier.) > > Shuffling code around, when done carefully, is called *organizing*. The shuffling in this case (at least IIUC) involves taking out random bits of "looks like it's useful" code and moving it into a big (parent-less) collection named "unorganized stuff". [A better attempt at this kind of promotion path would to extend the chain of `scheme/foo' -> `scheme/private/foo' for some `foo's: add new list functions into `scheme/list-extra', and have all the extras documented in an "Unstable Extras" manual. This way, the unstable stuff is still organized according to functionality, and since the code is in `foo-extra', then it's hint for `foo's owner that some stuff might be good to add -- and if this comes with proper documentation and tests then it's even easier to add.] -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev