Thank you, Matthias (and also Neil Van Dyke) for the very detailed explanation of the design decisions that has gone into Racket. Now I see that Racket is intended to be a Lisp dialect of its own rather than a "Scheme plus extensions" as I had mistakenly assumed.
In retrospect, that assumption was influenced by my experience with C which is the predominant language in which I program. Various implementations of C, such as those of GNU, Microsoft, Intel, Sun, AIX, etc., provide their own diverse extensions to the language but in all cases the extensions are strict supersets of the standard C -- they would be considered unacceptable otherwise. I was looking for something similar in the scheme world but what I have learned is that one cannot extend his experience from one programming language realm and culture into another and expect to find a one to one correspondence. At any rate, racket seems to be a well-thought-out product and I intend to look more into it. Rouben ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
