[racket-dev] (round), etc. in Typed Racket

An hour ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> 
> This particular change is a good example: You'd have to get used to
> the idea that Integer denotes 'exact integer'. Is this really bad?
> 
> Then again, perhaps we should produce a brand new
> 
>  #lang racket2 
> 
> that is a true break and develop 
> 
>  #lang typed/racket2 
> 
> in parallel. 

-1 for a `racket2', but why not change racket to that?  -- In a way
that doesn't change `scheme', so it's still available for legacy
code.  Does anyone have an idea how bad such a breakage is?

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!