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 [email protected]. 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.
