On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Carl Eastlund <carl.eastl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Robby Findler > <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: >> 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? > > You certainly can, but that is the opposite of my suggestion. It > seems like the source of confusion is that people are used to > different languages being different "modes", rather than different > source programs in one "multiple-language" grammar. The new dialog is > a partial step toward helping them out, by making it clearer that "no, > really, you can get any language you want with #lang". > > But I am suggesting, for those who don't immediately "get it", why not > provide them with what they expect. Add options for Typed Scheme, PLT > Scheme, R6RS, Lazy Scheme, and any other #lang-based languages we can > think of, that we implementers think of as "part of the Module > language", but users prefer to think of as "a language level". > There's no reason to force them to think our way about it. Is there?
Yes, I understood your suggestion. I should have replied more carefully. I'm saying that I think something like the language dialog is ultimately doomed and that we should be doing something else entirely. Until we figure out what that is, I don't think that it is worth our time and energy to make the language dialog into a kind of "#lang"-line wizard. Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
