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 [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
