On Jul 5, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Alexander D. Knauth wrote: > On Jul 5, 2014, at 12:10 PM, Brian Adkins <racketus...@lojic.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > I’m pretty sure that local is never required for that in any circumstances. > > See http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2013-November/060352.html
Thanks - that's good to know. I probably just saw it in HTDP and made an assumption about it's necessity. >> Is match typically used to destructure lists? > > Match can be used for a lot of things, but (looking ahead) you might want to > look at one of the match-lambda s: > > http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/match.html?q=match-lambda#%28form._%28%28lib._racket%2Fmatch..rkt%29._match-lambda%29%29 > > Probably the one you want is either match-lambda* or maybe match-lambda**. The various match-lambdas got me closer. I haven't found one w/o an extra set of [ ] or ( ) yet, but if I don't, I think I can make a macro for it after gaining some experience to allow the following: (define foo (my-match-lambda ((arg1 _ arg2) arg3) (bar arg1 arg2 arg3))) instead of: (define foo (match-lambda* [(list (list arg1 _ arg2) arg3) (bar arg1 arg2 arg3)])) Unless I'm missing something, that seems to be a fairly straightforward transformation. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
