I've modified the code with Matthias' feedback and a brief reading of the style guide. I must have been confused on the use of "local". I got the impression that it was required if you wanted to (define (foo arg ...)) within another function, but I took it out, and everything works fine. Maybe local is only required for circumstances that I haven't hit yet. The rank-restaurants functions is nicer looking w/o the local.
There's a lunch-v2.rkt at the top of the gist now. Still needs improvement, but it's significantly better now stylistically. https://gist.github.com/lojic/d45437453ccc8bcba196 I read in the style guide about preferring define over let due to indentation level. I think I like that for one or two bindings, but if you have a longer list of bindings, the verbosity of repeated define's is harder to handle. For small functions of a few lines, I don't think using let is that bad, for example: (define (my-function arg) (define var-1 (foo1 arg)) (define var-2 (foo2 arg)) (define var-3 (foo3 arg)) (define var-4 (foo4 arg)) (define var-5 (foo5 arg)) (foo-n var-1 var-2 var-3 var-4 var-5)) vs. (define (my-function arg) (let ([var-1 (foo1 arg)] [var-2 (foo2 arg)] [var-3 (foo3 arg)] [var-4 (foo4 arg)] [var-5 (foo5 arg)]) (foo-n var-1 var-2 var-3 var-4 var-5)) I'm fine with following the style guide when contributing later - consistency is a big win over subtle, subjective pros/cons. But, out of curiosity, would the multiple-defines example above be absolutely preferred over the let example for Racket code? Is match typically used to destructure lists? I used it a few times in the program, but in the following example, a couple defines w/ second & third seemed better given the complexity of the nested folds. (define (summed-history history) (foldl (λ (3tuple hsh) (define rest (second 3tuple)) (define users (third 3tuple)) (foldl (λ (user hsh) (hash-set hsh (list user rest) (+ 1 (hash-ref hsh (list user rest) 0)))) hsh users)) (hash) history)) vs. (define (summed-history history) (foldl (λ (3tuple hsh) (match 3tuple [(list _ rest users) (foldl (λ (user hsh) (hash-set hsh (list user rest) (+ 1 (hash-ref hsh (list user rest) 0)))) hsh users)])) (hash) history)) What I'd really like is to replace the 3tuple arg with a pattern: (define (summed-history history) (foldl (λ ((_ rest users) hsh) (foldl (λ (user hsh) (hash-set hsh (list user rest) (+ 1 (hash-ref hsh (list user rest) 0)))) hsh users)) (hash) history)) Thanks, Brian ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
