Btw, for me, probably as for others, the problem is not really to type `define', since I have a keybinding shortcut for that, but that it takes too much visual space when my eye should rather not be lost in too much information on the screen so as to focus on the important parts of the code. Personal taste, though.
Laurent On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Laurent <laurent.ors...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Greg Hendershott < > greghendersh...@gmail.com> 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. >> > > I agree. I would probably prefer `def' for inner definitions, but stick > with `define' for top-level ones. Maybe. > >> >> Possible reasons why not: >> 1. It smells too much like Clojure? (Although I suppose you could >> argue `define' smells like classic Scheme.) >> > > Not imitating good ideas is not really a sign of great intelligence I > believe. That does not mean this one is good, just saying. > > Laurent >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
