Laurent Orseau

I'm okay to update the scripts. How about creating a new package/collection like `quickscript-default-scripts`? If there's no need to tweak the scripts, it's okay if it's not in the user's...

I do think the current setting is good. While in principle the two cases are semantically equivalent, I see the first case as a binding between a value and a...

Personally, I don't like this transformation. Syntactically, the test gets substantial rightward drift even though the body is less indented. The intent is also less clear because the `#:when` clause...

This is probably more helpful: ``` (for (clause1 ...) (when test (for (clause2 ...) body ...))) ;; -> (for (clause1 ... #:when test clause2 ...) body ...) ``` But I...

It appears that there are some important differences between `with-syntax` and `#:with`: https://discord.com/channels/571040468092321801/667522224823205889/870065339017330688 and following messages. So unless there's a way to filter out the bad cases, I guess this...

I don't really understand why `--fix` and `--analyze` don't work well for the future, and I don't really see the difference with `resyntax analyze` or `resyntax/cli/analyze`. Except that at least...

> The reason I want to avoid `--fix` and `--analyze` flags is because I'm certain that eventually we're going to add features to fix-mode that don't make sense for analyze-mode....

Indeed it wouldn't, and the help does say so. I agree it goes a little against intuition, although there are a number unix command line tools that do break this...

ok good. Then I'll try to submit a PR to racket/cmdline to allow for non [-+] flags, as well as a PR to racket/cmdline for `#:defaults-to-help` (in preparation), but I...

For example, I ported a Scheme project to Racket, and resyntax finds lots of potential refactorings (which is pretty neat!). But I'm not sure I want to apply all of...