[racket-dev] Internal definitions in `define'

From: Robby Findler (robby at eecs.northwestern.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 29 19:57:57 EST 2011

I'm mildly against it, since it seems too easy to make parenthesis
errors that are very confusing (ie if you move a paren from the end of
one define to the end of a following define, the errors will get


On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> Does anyone know of a reason to not have an implicit `begin' in a
> plain definition, translated into an implicit (let () ...) in racket?
> When I see things like this:
>  http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8667403
> I think that people expect the syntax of `define' to be uniform, so if
> you can switch these:
>  (define (foo x) (+ x 1))
>  (define foo (+ 8 1))
> then the expectation is for the same to work when there are multiple
> expressions.
> --
>          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
>                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!
> _________________________
>  Racket Developers list:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev

Posted on the dev mailing list.