Backward compatibility is usually valuable and rarely virtuous. If the Racket dev team considers something an "obvious improvement to the language," then it should go into the language.
> Backward-Compatibility > ---------------------- > > The change is an obvious improvement to the language, but if we decide > to stick with it, it's also a backward-incompatible change: > > * Is this kind of backward incompatibility ok? > > We'll base a decision on how the experiment turns out, but > especially if the experiment goes well, a clear mandate from the > Racket community would seal the deal. > >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
