Have you ever considered extending the grammar of define from this:
(define id expr)
(define (head args) body ...+)
To this:
(define id expr ... ...) ; <-- like e.g. `hash`
(define (head args) body ...+)
So we could write things like:
(define x 0
y 1
z 2)
Sometimes so much writing/reading of "define" feels like too low a
signal:noise ratio.
Or would this cause problems?
p.s. I guess it's a slippery slope. For instance what I'd like even
more is for `match-define` extended that way, and given a name like
`define` or `def`:
(define pat expr ... ...)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
