I believe the plan is to make #lang racket a synonym for #lang scheme, and I think that this is wise, so we can quickly port things.
Of course, I'd be in favor of making this change to #lang scheme. Robby On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Ryan Culpepper <[email protected]> wrote: >> For racket, I propose we make the namespace argument to the 'eval' function >> mandatory. It's currently optional, and one-arg 'eval' is an attractive >> nuisance. If programmers have to specify the evaluation context---especially >> if they have to read up on namespaces to figure out how to get one---they >> are less likely to expect magical behavior from one-arg 'eval'. > > I agree. > >> For scheme, I think we should leave it alone but perhaps mark it as >> deprecated in the docs. >> >> The same argument could in principle be made for anything that implicitly >> uses (current-namespace), but I think 'eval' is by far the largest source of >> problems. > > I would also suggest than anything the operates on the > current-namespace *without* at least an optional namespace argument be > fixed. A few examples are: `namespace-require', > `namespace-require/copy', `namespace-symbol->identifier', > `namespace-syntax-introduce'. > > -- > sam th > [email protected] > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
