A few minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote: > I stand by my recommendation from December: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/2012-December/011218.html > > That is, I think this suggestion should be phrased as a patch. > > As implied in my quote below, I tried something much like you're > describing, and I was unhappy with the resulting complications. > Maybe I implemented the idea wrong, and maybe you'll come with > something better --- all the more reason to phrase your suggestion > as a patch.
The question is whether such a patch is worth working on it or not. (And I'm assuming that you're suggesting that that such a patch is fine if it's possible to implement without me realizing on the way some reasons against it.) -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev