Unfortunately I don't think you can combine def with destructuring, because then you can't use it for functions afaik. I think two forms is necessary.
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Greg Hendershott <greghendersh...@gmail.com > wrote: > To combine what Neil and Luke said, maybe one new thing `def' could do > is include destructuring. > > In other words it's really an alias for `match-define'. > > And > (match-define x 1) > > is the same as > (define x 1) > > correct? > > > I'd also like to see a syntax if possible that lets you (as with > `let') do multiple defines in one shot: > > (let ([x 1] > [y 2]) > ...) > > could perhaps be: > > (def ([x 1] > [y 2]) > ...) > > or even just: > > (def x 1 > y 2) > > ? > > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Luke Vilnis <lvil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +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 > > > > > > > > ____________________ > > Racket Users list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
