+1000 to "def" idea I think the super verbose keywords can be an impediment to code readability. The increase in signal-to-noise, along with (imo) sexier looking code samples to show to prospective Racketeers is worth it. As silly as it might sound, when I started out, Scheme's notoriously long keywords gave it a superficial appearance of impracticality.
;; hot! (def x 12) (def y 15) (def z 12) (+ x y z) ;; not! (define x 12) (define y 15) (define z 12) (+ x y z) On a related note - if we're looking to shorten some offending keywords, making a nice alias for "match-define" would be fantastic. It is a shame to have to use a 12-letter keyword to get something that is accomplished with "let" in other languages, especially since Racket's pattern matching is too awesome not to use. I sometimes define "val" or "mdef" as an alias for "match-define", but I'm always too embarassed to let such code escape my laptop. On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org>wrote: > Making new names for key things is a good time to revisit what those > things look like and mean. > > I have no major requests for changes to "define", but perhaps someone else > does. (I do, however, have a major request for the "let" family, but not a > lot of time at the moment to advocate it, unless someone is going to mess > with "let" now.) > > Neil V. > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/**users <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users> >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
