On Feb 10, 2013 5:51 PM, "Da Gamer" <<a href="mailto:game_beta2003@yahoo.com">game_beta2003@yahoo.com</a>> 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