On Dec 1, 2012, at 9:23 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > I think the high-level answer is that you have to understand something > about details that aren't currently specified but nevertheless are how > things currently work and then make a test that will work when you > make those additional assumptions (and then keep it running in drdr so > you can tell when the assumptions get broken).
Doesn't this suggest deep down that Neil is trying to 'beat' Racket and its implementation with his program? I think the entire discussion (I didn't follow every detail) points to something lacking about the language. -- Matthias _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
