An hour ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> This particular change is a good example: You'd have to get used to
> the idea that Integer denotes 'exact integer'. Is this really bad?
>
> Then again, perhaps we should produce a brand new
>
> #lang racket2
>
> that is a true break and develop
>
> #lang typed/racket2
>
> in parallel.
-1 for a `racket2', but why not change racket to that? -- In a way
that doesn't change `scheme', so it's still available for legacy
code. Does anyone have an idea how bad such a breakage is?
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
