P4P is also very much "current", as far as I'm concerned. (In fact, I'm quite likely about to use it in a new setting.) Pyret is a parallel branch effort.
Pyret is "let's just go all out and design a new syntax". Specifically, I was tired of dealing with people who wouldn't read *How to Design Programs* because of the syntax, and wanted to be able to communicate its ideas to them. We realized that a new syntax could go a long ways. It has. But I still dream in parentheses. (-: P4P, in contrast, was my attempt at an answer to "how far can we go with Racket's existing mechanisms?" Indeed, the original P4P is flawed in that it seems to take Racket as the base language. In retrospect, this isn't what I meant. I meant for P4P to be a *syntax* that *layers* atop *whatever* underlying (semantic) language you want, as a different *reader*. It wasn't really implemented that way, but should have been/should be. Then you could use any existing Racket language with P4P syntax as its surface. Shriram On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 2:34:31 PM UTC-4, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > > Wesley Kerfoot wrote on 7/15/19 2:28 PM: > > Has anyone considered http://shriram.github.io/p4p/ as an alternative? > > This might represent Shriram's current thinking (and is what I was > alluding to before): https://www.pyret.org/ > > I'll wait for the official community process to commence, before I get > deep in discussion. > > -- 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/4af85482-fd61-4173-a878-e61b02ab8776%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
