On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Carl Eastlund <carl.eastl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Robby Findler > <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Carl Eastlund <carl.eastl...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Could we populate the Language dialog with popular choices (PLT >>> Scheme, R6RS Scheme, etc.) that all just dump the user into what we >>> know as the Module language, but with the right first line provided? >>> It seems like what users want is split up differently from how we've >>> implemented it, so why not present a menu split up the way users want >>> and keep the implementation split up the way we find convenient. >> >> I considered this, but am afraid that it may be too big of a change >> for some of our users at this point. Also, I'm afraid that we don't >> yet have (up to snuff) #lang-based versions of all of our languages. > > I'm not proposing removing any of our current options, nor using the > "bait and switch" technique for any language except the ones that we > only support via #lang. The student languages should stay separate > from Module, and anyone who wants Module should be able to get it (by > that or another descriptive name). But some languages people are > looking for, that they might not think fall under "Module", I don't > see any reason not to provide by name: PLT Scheme, Typed Scheme, R6RS, > etc.
The only language I see in the language dialog that appears to meet your criterion is Lazy Scheme. How about we just remove it from the language dialog instead? Or are there others? Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
