On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 1:22:48 PM UTC-4, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > > > > On Mar 11, 2019, at 1:18 PM, Brian Adkins <lojic...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > I want let semantics, but I've been using define more because it's > preferred in the Racket style guide. I don't want the behavior of define > above, so using letrec to get a runtime error instead of compile time error > doesn't make sense. > > > > Oops - I should've used let* in my example. > > > That wouldn’t change a thing in your example.
My only point was that when using let, it fails even when ordered correctly, but with let* it succeeds when ordered correctly. > If you meant you want a let* semantics for sequences of define, I think > that’s a good idea. And as the author of the Style Guide, I wholeheartedly > agree with this desire. When I replace let-s with define-s, I have gotten > used to checking for identifier sequencing and such. But perhaps a newbie > shouldn’t have to think that way. I would argue that *nobody* should have to think that way when we can have the compiler do it for us :) Obviously, I'm happy with a dynamically typed language, as I've chosen Racket over OCaml & Haskell, but I'm still happy to delegate some things to the compiler. -- 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.
