[plt-dev] some Racket proposals & implementation

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> Can we inspect all define- names in our base and consider deleting the
> define- part? Thanks -- Matthias

I thoroughly agree with Carl about this being a bad idea.

With that said, here's the list:

core definition forms:
 define-values
 define-syntaxes
 define-values-for-syntax
 define
 define-for-syntax
 define-syntax

versions of define-struct:
 define-contract-struct
 define-struct
 define-struct/derived
 define-struct/contract

class forms:
 define/augment-final
 define/override
 define/private
 define/public
 define/augride
 define/overment
 define/pubment
 define/override-final
 define/public-final
 define/augment

unit definition forms:
 define-compound-unit
 define-unit/s
 define-unit-binding
 define-unit/contract
 define-unit/new-import-export
 define-unit-from-context
 define-compound-unit/infer
 define-unit
 define-signature

things that have to bind static info (like `define-struct'):
 define-member-name
 define-local-member-name
 define-serializable-class*
 define-serializable-class
 define-match-expander
 define-signature-form
 define-namespace-anchor
 define-sequence-syntax
 define-opt/c

macros over existing definition forms:
 define-values/invoke-unit
 define-syntax-rule
 define-values/invoke-unit/infer
 define/contract
-- 
sam th
samth at ccs.neu.edu