What do you think about implementing Racket2/Rhombus in two phases: Phase 1 would be limited to the current s-expression syntax (e.g. breaking changes, language improvements, library improvements, changes to support phase 2, etc.), and then Phase 2 would build the infix syntax using the results of Phase 1 ?

I, for one, definitely want to retain s-exp syntax, if only for structural code editing (but also for other reasons)

Library changes and surface syntax changes seem orthogonal enough that I don’t see a need to fully plan out one before the other

I was under the impression that the ‘surface’ syntax has some nontrivial implications on the s-exp level

@notjack are those the only types of changes in Racket2/Rhombus i.e. library and surface syntax?

Not sure. I know VM changes aren’t planned, and I know surface syntax proposals are what mflatt’s working on right now.