On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 06:19:00PM +0200, Laurent 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.
Long long ago I implemented a lispish language using a syntactic hack to reduce nesing. ( a b c / d e f / g h i) is equivalent to (a b c ( d e f ( g h i))) I would line them up like this: ( a b c / d e f / g h i ) This unnests a lot of constructions. Of course, in Scheme you't probably have to find another symbol, because / already has a meaning. -- hendrik ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
