> Exposing submodules is becoming more prevalent in Racket,
That's interesting, I hadn't noticed this trend yet, what are some examples?
I feel like the downside you mentioned is significant. I guess instead
I wish it were possible for this to be totally up to the implementor
-- and not require (pun) the user to know about the "physical"
(sub)module location or to use special syntax.
Hmm, what if `(require foo/bar)` should mean any of (in order):
foo/bar.{rkt,ss}
foo/bar/main.{rkt,ss}
(submod foo bar) ;new
Admittedly adding the last meaning could cause collisions in existing
code: "test" is a likely collision, as it's likely to be both a
submodule name and a subdirectory name. However, it's probably
unlikely for the user of a collection to (require foo/test)? And the
collection itself would be using rel-strings with submod? And a tool
like raco test would also do the explicit (require (submod "foo.rkt"
test))? So maybe it's OK??
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/CAGspUn2KYoQZjxxWSd8%2BjnpPZHPW__Mmkw2F6ZG2%3Dqi433sgGw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
