(disclaimer: i'm just a user; what i say doesn't reflect the rest of the community)
"Racket" is a programming language lab. Both RxRS, and the rest of the "separate Racket language" that you allude to, are built on top of it, not the other way around. What would be the advantage of being built on top of R6RS? What you're proposing seems like just a semantic change to me. If it's because you're uncomfortable about Racket "messing with the standard", I really recommend that you take a look at this thread from last year and the related messages: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2011-May/045448.html http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2011-May/045448.html As Neil Van Dyke wrote, "When industry people come from other languages to look at Racket, they've already placed Racket in their conceptual framework, where "standard" is heavily loaded. So, when these people read in Wikipedia and memetic descendants of Wikipedia that R6RS is the "standard", even though I think R6RS should be shot in the gut and left in a ditch to die painfully, people naturally assume that R6RS is the obvious way to go. "Use non-standard?! Get back from me, you satan!" So they spend the weekend trying to do something in R6RS, stumbling over little headaches doing that in Racket, ask questions, and are suspicious when Racket people try to tell them to just do things in a non-R6RS way that sounds like sneaky "proprietary non-standard extensions lock-in bad-engineering" salesmanship. In a day or two, they've lost interest or written off "Scheme", and they move on to the next interesting thing to look at." Da Gamer <game_beta2...@yahoo.com> writes: > I was wondering if Racket at any point in the future will be libraries built > from or on top of R7RS small and big proper (or any future standard RxRS > really). As opposed to being its own language. > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
