At Sun, 14 Jul 2019 13:44:27 -0400, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote: > The context of this email is the proposal by Matthew Flatt that we move > to an easier-to-accept surface syntax for #lang racket2.
I appreciate your enthusiasm to get started! And I normally appreciate concrete proposals to solve problems. But I think the design-and-exploration task that we have ahead is too big for this mode of operation. Specifically, I don't think we should use the mailing list to broadcast and discuss concrete solutions just now. It's presumably on me to propose the next step, so stay tuned. I won't offer a proposal for a solution or even a proposal for a set of constraints on a solution. Instead, I intend a proposal (informed by Aaron's talk) for the social structure that we use to study the possibilities for Racket2, including but not limited to the question of reader syntax. In other words, while it's tempting to jump into technical discussions, I think we'll need to take this more slowly and formally, making sure that we agree on a set of goals/constraints for a potential new syntax. Just as an example, I would advocate the constraint that function(arg, ...) needs to be the function-call syntax --- with commas --- not just function(arg ...) as you wrote it. My point is not to debate the comma detail here or establish it a priori as a requirement, but only to illustrate the layers of discussion that we'll need to work through. -- 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/5d2b9451.1c69fb81.da89e.58f4SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
