-- Ethan Estrada | CTO & COO M: 801-669-1598 | E: et...@metapipe.com The Startup Building | 560 S 100 W STE 1 (sent from my phone)
On Jan 29, 2017 06:45, "Matthew Flatt" <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: At Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:51:43 -0800 (PST), Ethan Estrada wrote: > My only real beef with the Racket docs are the layout of packages; > there is no clear distinction between docs for standard library items > and docs for community provided libs. That's intentional. I'd say that the absence of a line that distinguishes "Racket" from "not Racket" at the package level is an extrapolation of our goal to avoid a line between the "language" and "library" at the level of a module. There are certainly some drawbacks to allowing any old module to add new constructs to the programming language, but we think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Similarly, there are some drawbacks to allowing any old package to have the same status as the base system, but I believe in the benefits. In both cases, it's important that programmers have control over what is used and what isn't used. The module system enforces boundaries so that a module added to a program can't have an arbitrary effect on other modules in the program. Similarly, the package system is intended to give the programmer control over what packages are installed and how they are installed. I'm not objecting to improvement here --- just trying to clarify why the current organization is like that. Also, I'd concede that we have a notion of "main distribution", which identifies a set of packages that are included in the Racket installers at racket-lang.org. That's a useful concept, but I see it as a compromise, and I'm reluctant to reflect that distinction in the documentation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
