The discussion on that page seems to be pretty well argued for the Right Thing, namely that Racket is a separate language.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Asumu Takikawa <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2013-02-18 12:47:21 +0000, Tim Brown wrote: > > I've just had a poke around and seen that Racket is considered a > dialect > > of scheme, and there are many tasks that have the scheme entry marked > as > > "works with racket", but not in a way that shows the task is > implemented > > as a Racket example. (I've just looked at > Category:Programming_Languages, > > and Racket isn't even listed). > > It used to be listed as a separate language actually. There was some > dicussion here: > http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Category_talk:Racket > > I'm not sure what the policy is, if there is one. > > Cheers, > Asumu > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
