[racket-dev] [plt] Push #22081: master branch updated

9 minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> 
> Interesting point. With types, this issue just goes away. 
> 
> (No matter what, I argue that Lazy should be totally compatible in
> contracts/types/argument order with Racket. Nothing else makes
> sense.)

* I take this point as a reason that static types are even more
  desirable in a lazy language than in a strict one.

* But other than that, there's not much to do -- you don't want
  complete compatibility, since then you'd lose the laziness...

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