Jacqueline Firth

Could we expose this information in `require` and `provide` somehow? Like if I have a module that I require because I need the side effects of instantiating that to run,...

@LiberalArtist Related, I am constantly annoyed that I can't do this: ```racket (define-values (_ _ value-I-actually-want _ _) (something)) ``` ...because it complains that this introduces duplicate bindings for `_`....

This is a brilliant idea.

Oh god yes please. Were you also thinking that the `examples` form could look at the bindings of all identifiers used and automatically include the needed `(require ...)` form? There...

Out of curiosity, I made a table of what names different languages use for filtering functionality. I'm quite surprised that Racket is the only language I could find that actually...

You may wish to look at the current proposals for a surface syntax, such as shrubbery notation (#122) or line expressions (#114). There isn't yet a `#lang rhombus` available for...

Another use case is a `parameterize!` form that wraps the rest of the definition context in a parameterization: ```scheme (define (f) (parameterize! current-foo 5) (do-stuff)) ;; equivalent to this: (define...

Part of the reason the class system is so disconnected is that it existed *before* the module system and the macro system(s). In modern racket, the class system doesn't solve...

> I think that task of reimplementing the class system and the unit system as macros instead of within the compiler and runtime was one of the main drivers of...

> In particular, I believe @rmculpepper mentioned one reason to prefer Racket's classes to generic interfaces is for situations where the interface seen by users and the interface seen by...