At Sun, 4 Nov 2012 11:31:04 -0800, Scott Klarenbach wrote: > In other words, Is Racket simply a philosophy/convention of language > oriented programming with convenient syntactic wrappers to this end, or > does it more fundamentally extend Scheme to do things technically *impossible > *in that language?
The latter --- a more fundamental extension to Scheme. Here's our most recent attempt to explain: http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/jfp12-draft-fcdf.pdf ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
