Jacqueline Firth

> I feel like most C linters and coding standards warn programmers about writing code that doesn't rigorously following a formatting standard like "Always indent the bodies and use braces;...

Hello! There's been a few proposals so far, but little has been finalized. See #122 for the latest iteration or #119 and #114 for previously-discussed alternatives.

Are there other, better ways to do that? Or is using `procedure-reduce-arity` the best way to do that today?

> Part of the justification for preserving `equal?` via chaperones is that they change behavior only by raising additional exceptions, and that's a carefully chosen generalization of "equal". Allowing `procedure-reduce-arity`...

Related work: in my [`arguments`](https://docs.racket-lang.org/arguments/) package, there's a first-class `arguments?` struct wrapping positional and keyword args. There's also `apply/arguments` and `define/arguments` as easier alternatives to `keyword-apply`, `make-keyword-procedure`, etc.: ```racket >...

There's a lot to unpack here. But first of all, thank you for your enthusiastic interest in the future of Racket! I think it would be easier to engage with...

Just to be clear, this issue is unrelated to the `thunk` form in `racket/function` correct?

What if we had a definition form of `let/cc`? ```racket (define foo 42) (capture-continuation k) (define bar 5) ``` ...where `capture-continuation` worked as if the rest of the body was...

Does it have to be distinct from `define`? Could `define` just do this by default?

Hmm. What if `define` did this by default when defining _constants_, but not when defining functions? Plus maybe some optional keyword or annotation when you want to be explicit about...