At Fri, 19 Jul 2019 08:54:41 -0700 (PDT), Brian Adkins wrote: > This may seem like a nitpick, but I think there would be a *huge* shift in > attitudes if the suggestion for an infix syntax was framed in a similar > manner to Typed Racket as opposed to Racket 2. The latter seems to imply a > premature conclusion, where the former proposes a question to be answered > by the community i.e. if people do flock to #lang infix, then the people > will have spoken. Let #lang infix win by merit, not by decree!
I agree that the process would have to be something like that. Compared to projects like Typed Racket, a syntax change in Racket2 probably requires more people. Also, Typed Racket took on the design constraint that it should fit Racket as-is as much as possible, while a syntax change would come with more expectation of migration. It's maybe just a difference of degree, though. -- 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/5d34617a.1c69fb81.383c7.0155SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
