On Jan 24, 2013, at 3:16 AM, Leslie P. Polzer wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a quite solid Common Lisp background and I'm currently > making myself familiar with Scheme and Racket. It's a refreshing > experience; where CL is like an overgrown jungle, Racket is like > a well-tended garden. :) > > You folks also did a tremendous job on documenting it all. Thanks > for that! > > The only thing I really did miss so far in the docs is information > on where certain parts are coming from. It would be quite helpful > to have short annotations like "This is part of R5RS", "This comes > from SRFI-39", "This is a Racket extension", etc. > > Would that make sense? Thank you.
The search results tell you where pieces of functionality comes from. When you look at library functionality, there also tends to be a (require foo/bar) statement at the beginning of the section, though often such a library could be included in #lang racket. For an example, see http://doc.racket-lang.org/teachpack/2htdpuniverse.html When you mouse over any identifier in a #lang racket program (and similar flavors), the arrows tell you which part of the language or library they come from. As for the language itself, we cannot distinguish which feature comes from where and, honestly, I think it would be asking a bit much. I am old enough, but I honestly don't recall when with-input-from-file was added to some R^nRS: n = 3, 4, 5, or 6? Finally, since Racket isn't Scheme or CL or Clojure, we are also reluctant to annotate for/fold with "warning this is not a feature you will find in some implementation of CL or Clojure or Scheme." I hope you understand -- Matthias ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
