At Sun, 26 Jul 2020 02:58:26 +0000, Sage Gerard wrote: > You're looking for something like: > > (require (file "zcpkg-deps/example.com/package/module.rkt")).
Ah, got it. In my example, I wanted (require "zcpkg-deps/mflatt/beta/b.rkt") So, I understood the intent, but I missed "zcpkg-deps" instead of "..". > Currently I assume that a dependent package > only needs one version of a package, which is why the path above > does not include version information. I haven't yet > decided if this should change. Makes sense. > I visualized the project as adding casework: Racket packages define at > least one collection, so what changes with a zero-collection package? > Well, everything, so it felt more like `raco pkg` having an "advanced" mode. > It seemed wise to keep my code isolated while I figured things out. Yes. Even if we set up some kind of interoperability with `raco pkg`, I can imagine that the implementations of the two modes staying almost completely separate. [reordered:] > Obviously a require transformer would be nice, but at the level I'm > targeting I have the chicken-and-egg problem re: where that binding > comes from. That makes sense, too. To be clear, the possibility I have in mind for letting code migrate between `raco pkg` and `zcpkg` modes involves an even more pervasive change --- modifying the grammar of module path --- not just adding a require transformer. But that's probably getting too far ahead of things right now. Matthew -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/20200726070204.31%40sirmail.smtp.cs.utah.edu.
