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 [email protected]. 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.
