> I think in this case it is probably justified What is "it"? The GP clearly doesn't understand that code and utterly misconstrues its nature and the nature of

> I think in this case it is probably justified What is "it"? The GP clearly doesn't understand that code and utterly misconstrues its nature and the nature of the Racket/Scheme/LISP language. If someone has zero knowledge of the topic at hand (even when it's a seminal programming language that's been around for nearly 70 years), they have an obligation to at least glance at TFA before commenting. > the claim of "no special syntax" is unfortunately not true That's a completely different issue than the one I addressed. (And I really don't think the point is made in good faith--the sense in which that phrase was meant is well understood, certainly by the GGP who is so very familiar with Racket's token syntax and quasiquotes.) I won't respond further.