[racket] Thoughts on Overeasy

From: Neil Van Dyke (neil at neilvandyke.org)
Date: Mon Aug 29 06:20:08 EDT 2011

Eli Barzilay wrote at 08/29/2011 06:06 AM:
>  but this is where
> I think the problems start: you clearly don't want to implement a
> complete language since you already have one, so why extend the
> mini-language to do things that are already in the language...

I already did it for doing an equality test...

> Meanwhile, there is already some concrete damage in you providing a
> pretty alternative: you reduce the pressure on the language designer
> to provide a prettier form, since your users are protected from the
> ugly form.

1. The language designers for Racket/Scheme have had that problem for a 
few decades now.  I don't feel morally responsible for their priorities. :)

2. We strike a balance with sugar (even R5RS has a bunch), and I'm 
trying to find where to strike that balance for Overeasy.

3. I think that the sugar balance for Overeasy is different than that of 
core Racket.

4. Maybe I should wait to see what other people's real-world test cases 
look like, before I go adding sugar that might not be needed or might 
not be quite adequate.


Posted on the users mailing list.