> You keep thinking (1 2 3) is the canonical form of a list. It is
> not. It's just a particular *print representation* of list. So is
> #<list> or one of the many alternatives Eli proposed.
> Oh, I understand that. It's just that I don't understand why you (i.e. Racket
> implementers) choose Racket by default prints list this way (different than
> all other lisps). I think this choice can confuse beginners (and all other
> users who switches from different lisp implementations and expects
> "traditional" REPL behaviour).
> Your attempt to use an interpreter model is commendable but falls
> short. That is because you only described the READ and EVAL steps of
> a REPL. The L(oop) is not relevant here, but the P(rint) is actually
> the most critical part, and that's the one you left out of your
> attempt at explaining what's happening.
>
> Also, Matthias asked you about substituting answers inside bigger
> expressions. You gave him a mechanical answer of why (you think) it
> won't work, but you failed to understand the bigger point he was
> trying to make in the first place.
>
> Shriram
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
