Alex Knauth

The `hash-equal?` function is confusing because it doesn’t ask whether two hash-tables are equal, as you would expect from the conventions above. Instead it asks whether a single hash-table uses...

For the `#%` prefix, it doesn’t go on all kernel forms, but it does go on all _interposition point_ forms. These are forms that can be overridden by a module-language...

### For the `with-` and `call-with-` conventions For many of these renames from `with-` to `call-with-`, a macro version that accepts a body should be added if it doesn't exist...

I would prefer whitespace-delimited tokens. Well, whitespace, parens, brackets, braces, quotes, and commas, like racket already does. I like `?`, `-`, `/`, `>`, and other characters in my identifiers as...

It might be worth considering a notion of equality that recurs through _immutable_ data structures like `equal?` does, but uses reference equality on mutable data structures. Same idea as `egal?`...

To answer (2), yes, for `(equal? 1 1.0) => #f` vs `(= 1 1.0) => #t`. Exact-integers and floats-that-happen-to-be-integers are different racket values, but are equivalent numbers under `=`

For an equality function that uses structural equality on immutable values, but reference equality on mutable values, is `chaperone-of?` the function that currently does that? I would propose making `equal?`...

I've been calling it "equal always" to distinguish it from "equal now", and I was thinking of having 2 separate operators for them. So my current preference: - `=~` for...

I've started a Partial Order design proposal here: https://github.com/racket/rhombus-prototype/pull/276

This version of it with `#{name : type}` annotations works: ```racket (match-define (point #{a : Number} #{b : Number}) a) ``` (Edit: and by "works" I mean that it typechecks....