Eli Barzilay wrote at 08/29/2011 06:06 AM:
but this is where I think the problems start: you clearly don't want to implement a complete language since you already have one, so why extend the mini-language to do things that are already in the language...
I already did it for doing an equality test...
Meanwhile, there is already some concrete damage in you providing a pretty alternative: you reduce the pressure on the language designer to provide a prettier form, since your users are protected from the ugly form.
1. The language designers for Racket/Scheme have had that problem for a few decades now. I don't feel morally responsible for their priorities. :)
2. We strike a balance with sugar (even R5RS has a bunch), and I'm trying to find where to strike that balance for Overeasy.
3. I think that the sugar balance for Overeasy is different than that of core Racket.
4. Maybe I should wait to see what other people's real-world test cases look like, before I go adding sugar that might not be needed or might not be quite adequate.
-- http://www.neilvandyke.org/ _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
