"Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding."
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2006/20060313/verbing_weirds_language.gif On 05/10/2012 09:54 AM, Greg Hendershott wrote: > Should `def' be added as an alias for `define'? > > Possible reasons why: > 1. Most frequently used. > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/2012-May/009429.html > 2. Name shortening seems to be a current theme. > 3. The new style guide prefers `define' over `let'. > > Re 3 I like the less-indented benefit of `define' instead of `let'. > OTOH it's more verbose. > > Speaking of which, it also might be handy to `define' multiple > identifiers in one shot, as `let' can do. (Although perhaps the syntax > would need to be ugly due to how `define' is used also to define > functions. I haven't even tried to think that through; sorry.) > > > Possible reasons why not: > 1. It smells too much like Clojure? (Although I suppose you could > argue `define' smells like classic Scheme.) > 2. ? > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
