Re: [racket-users] Racket2 and syntax

2019-07-16 Thread Thomas Burdick
I thought I'd add my two cents here, as someone who's been using a mixed-syntax Lisp[*] daily for 15 years now. I've been working with electrical engineers, who aren't programmers, but obviously have a strong technical background. Traditional algebraic notation for math (what Matthew noted as +

Re: [racket-users] Racket2 and syntax

2019-07-15 Thread 'Alan Forrester' via Racket Users
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 03:30, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > tl;dr DON'T PANIC > > At RacketCon today, after summarizing the state of work on Racket CS, I > recommended that we next explore the possibly of changing to an > infix-oriented syntax in "Racket2". Infix notation introduces a lot of complexit

Re: [racket-users] Racket2 and syntax

2019-07-14 Thread Alexis King
Well! While I am sure that everyone at RacketCon has already discussed this to death, and I’m sure there has been plenty of support to counterbalance the tomato-throwing, let me be the first to say something positive on the mailing list so the optics from here aren’t so gloomy: I find this idea

[racket-users] Racket2 and syntax

2019-07-14 Thread Matthew Flatt
tl;dr DON'T PANIC At RacketCon today, after summarizing the state of work on Racket CS, I recommended that we next explore the possibly of changing to an infix-oriented syntax in "Racket2". You can find the recording here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnz6y5U0tFs Start at 32:27 for the part