For 4 if i run from the command line (racket 5.93) i just get the contract violation message, which don't provide positional informations, it's not usefull when

For 4 if i run from the command line (racket 5.93) i just get the contract violation message, which don't provide positional informations, it's not usefull when you have a list contract error with dozen of uses in a file. For 3 i mean the words like 'visiting', 'instantiated', the phases, the syntax transformer there are many things to grasp. For instance i used to believe that phase 1 bindings where the functions executed by the expander instead of the one defined by define-syntax. For complex macro i just expand it that's fine. Other point the continuation is hard to grasp, i really understand when i see http://www.infoq.com/presentations/continuations-web-os http://www.infoq.com/presentations/continuations-web-os, the key point that help me is the fact he mentions continuation capture also the exit. Another flaws i didn't mention is messages of typed/racket could be hard to understand especially one involving parametric function, this problem occur time to time in the mailing list. I know you take this kind of problems seriously. A point why i like racket is because it's lexical scoped but also let me precise the portion i want more dynamism in with parameters or with eval + namespace. Racket also miss some tooling the one come in mind is coding standard checker and formater, it could be done with free-identifier=? and have some rules. New macro could write their associated rule as metadata in a submodule. Is it doable, i mean technically not the fact to expect macro writer will write such rules?