> having said that, "eminently sensible" is in the eye of the beholder. > after all, racket didn't have static type checking for most of its > life, no? i am not saying it is or is not eminent in my own view, i am > pointing out that it is pretty subjective so you can't actually call > it "eminently sensible" since to some people it might actually be > eminently a pain in the ass.
This is a pretty poor example to illustrate your point, because Racket still does not have static type checking. Shriram _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
