On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 11:46:16 AM UTC-7, gustavo wrote: > > I always imagined racket2 as racket with a few minor backward incompatible > changes, for example make `length` generic, drop `struct`, remove > guarantees about freshness of results. I.E. Most of > https://github.com/racket/racket/wiki/Racket2 >
Yeah, I second this. At one point I was looking forward to "racket2" because I'd like the language to remove struct subtyping. which is essentially a backwards-incompatible change to conventional notions of how first-class values in the Racket runtime work, something that would affect nearly all #langs. I've figured out techniques to work around this in what I'm doing (basically by using struct-like things that aren't quite structs), so I'm not very opinionated about it anymore, but this is the primary example of what I expected racket2 to be about. Many of the things on that page are similar, involving technical changes that more or less can't be achieved without backwards incompatibility. As much as I find it worrying that racket2 would be kicked off with infix syntax (something which I think of as an unnecessary sticking point in the way of prospective macro writers and language designers, and hence a move *toward* elitism *as opposed to* welcoming everyone), I find it underwhelming that the next breath is "don't worry, we won't change #lang racket," since that dashes many of the reasons to hope for a racket2 in the first place. - Nia -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/e569d802-cd9c-4e92-9762-3cd7d1c10286%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
