On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 12:55:40 AM UTC+8, Greg Hendershott wrote: > > Although I'm still skeptical that changing the surface syntax will be a > sufficiently big net gain, and ought to be the next, highest priority? > I'm running with that idea for the following. >
I had a look at the proposals at https://github.com/racket/racket2-rfcs/issues, and they seem reasonable changes which, in my opinion, would improve the Racket language. Most of these changes, if they are implemented, would also allow a relatively easy transition of existing Racket code. I can see only one proposal for changing the syntax and it is no more radical than "#lang at-exp", which is already part of Racket, and seems to be popular. On the other hand, anyone who is reading the posts on racket-users list, would think that the Racket is a risky language to learn and use at this time. Perhaps it is time to stop the speculation and comment on the actual proposals being made? Alex. -- 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/3aea6a05-1c10-4b70-b942-88583080f43d%40googlegroups.com.
