On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Laurent <laurent.ors...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Jay McCarthy <jay.mccar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> There is not. I think you should add something into your documentation >> that says >> >> "Run racket -e '(require laurent/init)'" > > > Side question: Is there a difference with `racket -l laurent/init`?
I don't think so >> >> >> after installing. > > > Ok. > To remove weight from the user's shoulders, l prefer to use > `install-collection' and I'll try to avoid repeating the same questions on > each setup. > >> >> In my mind, this was not an oversight in the design, >> but a purposeful thing. > > > Do you currently have an explicit rationale for this, maybe? I can't think of a use-case that isn't covered by having a dependency or a slightly different packaged program. For instance, if you need to compile some C code, then you should compile it for your users and put it in the package (or as #:platform dependenices) and when those fail on the platform use the ffi-lib fail argument to throw an error like "Go to directory ... and type make" For instance, if you need to have the user create a configuration file so that when you run your main program, your program could check for that config when it starts and build it there. (A good example in my mind is s3cmd) I like the idea of common file utilities like zip, tar, etc being able to completely put package files into place and how we could smash everything into a single collects directory. But this is a less important thing to me. Jay -- Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
