[plt-dev] some Racket proposals & implementation

Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Tue, 6 Apr 2010 14:12:35 -0400, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> [...]
>> I like being able to read something and know whether it is (a) a
>> definition form and (b) introducing new bindings into the current
>> scope.  If we changed, for instance, define-signature to simply
>> signature, there would be nothing to indicate to a user of both units
>> and classes that signature is a definition, whereas interface is
>> merely a value constructor, despite the two otherwise performing very
>> similar roles.
> 
> Along the lines of my other message, I agree that we shouldn't change
> `define-signature'. It binds the name that appears right after the
> `define-signature', so the `define-' is a strong and appropriate
> signal.

I don't think the fact that it binds the supplied name and nothing else 
is the significant part. I have a macro that defines names associated 
with struct properties; given 'PROP', it defines 'PROP', 'PROP?' and 
'PROP-value' for the property, its predicate, and its accessor, 
respectively. The macro is called 'define-struct-property'; chopping off 
the 'define-' prefix because it defines generated names would be a bad 
idea. It would destroy the benefits that Carl mentions above.

> But `require' and `open-package' also bind in the enclosing scope. So
> do `init' and `field'. I expect that there are more examples.
> Meanwhile, local-binding forms are considerably more varied: `let',
> `syntax-case', `match', etc.
> 
> I think `struct' is prominent enough that it will stand out, if we go
> with it, much as `require' does.

'require' is significant enough that it trumps definition-ness. Within 
the context of the class macro, so are 'init' and 'define'. I'm not sure 
about 'open-package'---I don't use packages.

'struct' might be okay, but only because structs are important and 
everyone knows about structs, not because labeling definition forms with 
'define-' is a waste of characters. In particular, I disagree with Jay's 
summary:

Jay McCarthy wrote:
 > You've convinced me, Matthew. I like the rule that 'define...' names
 > everything that it binds and anything that makes stuff up shouldn't be
 > a 'define...'

----

BTW, we should have a distinct scribble form (defdefform) for definition 
forms with a standard place for listing the names they bind. This is 
doubly necessary if we're going to encourage definition forms that don't 
look like definition forms.

Ryan