Reorder provided identifiers to match their order of appearance

[jessealama]

(Not sure if this is what resyntax should be doing, but it feels in scope to me; feel free to decline this if it's not what you have in mind.)

For the sake of code aesthetics, I find it nice when the order of identifiers provided by a module matches the order in which they are defined. When things get out-of-order, the code starts to feel haphazard.

Rewrite, for example, a module like this

#lang racket
(provide g f)
(define (f x) (+ x x))
(define g 3)

to this:

#lang racket
(provide f g)
(define (f x) (+ x x))
(define g 3)

[jackfirth]

This feels a little too heavy handed to me. Sometimes definitions have ordering dependencies that there isn't much reason to expose in the module API, which is what I generally think of the provide form as describing. Imagining a future where resyntax is shipped with the main distribution and on by default, showing suggestions and warnings in DrRacket, this seems like something that would get a lot of "why is this being suggested?" feedback.

[Metaxal]

Just a suggestion: Instead of closing the proposal, maybe you could tag it as controversial or matter-of-taste or something, which enables others to refine the idea, and also this rule could still be useful if this rule can be applied manually (say like a menu item in DrRacket, possibly via a quickscript if it's not there by default). (I don't mean to force this onto you—if you prefer this kind of issues to be closed, no worries.)

[jackfirth]

Sounds like a good idea to me. I've created a project for opt-in rules and added this issue to it.