[racket] future

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