<div> <div> Hi All,</div> <div>  </div> <div> Just my two cents. :-) I am coming from the "original Lisp" point of view as well.</div> <div> At the beginning of the discussion I have not undertood any of the answers. They were</div> <div> "very cryptic" to me as well, but I have to say that these two papers made clear what</div> <div> is the position of DrRacket and I understand this. I am not sure why these papers made it</div> <div> clear and the discussion did not. Sorry.</div> <div> I will even try to incorporate these into my own teaching and thinking. :-)</div> <div> I am still with DrRacket. :-)))</div> <div>  </div> <div> Peter Ivanyi</div> <div> <br /> Danny Yoo <dyoo@cs.wpi.edu> írta:</div> <blockquote style="border-left:3px solid lightGray;padding-left:3px;">     2.  Several people have given a justification for why the default<br /> in Racket prints things in a way that's different from what you're<br /> used to.  The difference is not accidental: it's there by design.  For<br /> example, you can see Section 3.3 of<br /> http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Papers/Published/fffkf-drscheme-journal/paper.pdf,<br /> as well as Section 2.1 of Wadler's "Why Calculating is Better than<br /> Scheming" (http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/dat/miranda/wadler87.pdf)</blockquote> </div>