[plt-dev] make eval namespace argument mandatory

From: Robby Findler (robby at eecs.northwestern.edu)
Date: Wed Mar 17 19:08:41 EDT 2010

Constructor printing seems like an easy one to accept and, in general,
anything that allows us to script porting seems fine to me (with
something like check syntax we can script the make change by renaming
things I think?).

How important is it that the first Racket release have loads of "#lang
racket"s and no/few "#lang scheme"s?


On Wednesday, March 17, 2010, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> At Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:56:16 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
>> I believe the plan is to make #lang racket a synonym for #lang scheme,
>> and I think that this is wise, so we can quickly port things.
> Yes, that has been the plan. Then again, some of us talked about the
> alternative when I visited NEU.
> For example, maybe we should take the opportunity to have `#lang
> racket' trigger constructor-style printing. Maybe we should drop the
> `make-' prefix on constructor names introduced by `define-struct'
> (i.e., the one in `#lang racket', as opposed to `#lang scheme').
> We don't want to change a lot, but there are a handful of things that
> we're pretty sure we want and that seem within reach. It's worth
> considering, at least.

Posted on the dev mailing list.