[racket] R7RS and Racket in the (far) future

On Feb 10, 2013 5:51 PM, "Da Gamer" <game_beta2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Third, as someone who hasn't been in the Racket community long but knows
that it is a Scheme variant, I don't see why there is an issue of asking
such a question. Is there any need to be defensive and hostile? I can't see
the idea being that outrageous, untenable, or completely unnecessary.

I think the point is that Racket should not be thought of as a "Scheme
variant."  It follows its own rules and has its own goals and is not
beholden to RnRS in any way.  As such, it is able to go in directions that
RnRS can't.   As Matthias said, it is better to think of Racket as a
separate language in the Lisp/Scheme family rather than an implementation
of Scheme per se.

Justin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20130210/c4ba0ce2/attachment.html>