Before futures get too embedded in code... This is probably a silly question, but why does the future construct require an extra thunk? The common case is going to be (future <expr>); Racket is not Scheme, so it does not need to be afraid of adding new syntax. Is it particularly useful to have future be available as a proc? It seems to make more sense to have
(future E ...) ==> (future/fun (lambda () E ...)) and provide both future and future/fun, so in the common case, code stays that little bit more readable (and that little bit less indented). (I believe Clojure already breaks with tradition in this way.) Shriram _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
