I absolutely totally agree. -- Rudoplh, red-nodes raindeer
On Dec 14, 2010, at 8:33 AM, Doug Williams wrote: > How about Racket II as a unified literate (from the Scribble syntax), typed, > contracted Racket? > > Of all the syntaxes for defining things, the ones from Scribble (e.g., > defproc) seems to be the most general since they capture all of the > identifiers (e.g., procedure name, parameter names, keywords), default > values, contracts etc. Come up with a unified defining syntax based on that. > > Under that, unify Typed Racket and contracts. Maybe a 'type' could be > synonymous with a contract at some level. Add sybtyping to add additional > constraints (i.e., additional elements to be and/c'ed with the base > contract). > > Finally, allow in-line documentation within the defining construct. > > While I'm dreaming, I would also like to see the module and unit constructs > unified. In particular, I think a module signature (that also contains the > contract) would be nice. It could simplify definition of mutually dependent > modules - where the specifications (or signatures) are independent, but the > implementations are. > > Just some thoughts. > > Doug > > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> > wrote: > > All of this discussion suggests that we start developing RacketII, a language > that is a true break from Scheme. Our backward compatibility constraints are > just overwhelming our knowledge of what we know is 'bad' with Racket in > relation to other languages. > > Perhaps TR is the proper place to start such a 'clean-break' movement. > > -- Matthias > >
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
