Alexis King

> So it’s possible to reason about how the expander will affect its input. “No bindings” is a strong, simple, verifiable guarantee. “Maybe bindings, sometimes, depending” is not. Yes, it...

That scheme doesn’t work (nor does *any* name-mangling scheme), since it will capture user-defined bindings named `mu:let` (since `#%top` only gets introduced if the name is unbound). Also, what if...

Another thought, similar to @jackfirth’s comment: we might already have a way to do this in `#%datum`. If readers produce 3D syntax, the macroexpander will wrap it in `#%datum`. Currently,...

> If we're introducing a new API, I would propose a design that doesn't privilege normal Racket variable bindings as anything special versus other transformer environment entries. We might expose...

As a purely anecdotal data point, I was personally already familiar with the use of tau to mean “twice pi”, and I would personally find such a definition useful. Including...

I am not opposed to this change, but as @samth says, there is a difference between the other `match` forms and things like `==`. `==` is recognized by its binding,...