Re: [racket-users] Is there an expanded form of the Racket2 purpose declaration?

2019-08-28 Thread Breck Yunits
I'd recommend investing work to make the problem of porting Racket1 code to RacketN painless. Hopefully as simple as one method call. If translating Racket1 code to RacketX is made an easy problem, then you can do what is best for RacketX without worrying about how backwards compatibility. That

Re: [racket-users] Is there an expanded form of the Racket2 purpose declaration?

2019-08-28 Thread Breck Yunits
arsing it and upgrading it should be dead simple. Otherwise, why would I want to use a language that's difficult to upgrade? On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 8:08 AM Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 06:33:02AM -1000, Breck Yunits wrote: > > I'd recommend investing work t

[racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

2019-07-22 Thread Breck Yunits
Aloha folks, I had to miss RacketCon this year as we have a new 6 month old at home and couldn't make the trek out. But I would love to lend my efforts to support the initiative to explore a Racket universe without parens. If folks out there are working on this, shoot me an email

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

2019-07-22 Thread Breck Yunits
Hi Zelphir, Your concerns are absolutely warranted. >From what I've seen there is no advantage that editors can give you with parens, that they can't do better without parens, *given that you've written loads of tests and done the grunt work to make that happen*. Hence, it doesn't make sense to