[racket-dev] API naming conventions (Push #25466)

On Oct 16, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:

> 
> Eli, can you explain again -- perhaps in different words -- why define/match is a bad name? I understand that we have match-define and define/match now. While I agree that having two of these forms with remotely related functionality is possibly confusing, I don't see why match-define is really a better kind of name than define/match. 
> 
> If you are saying, that define/match is bad because it is too distinct from match-define I understand the name argument. 
> 
> [I might be guilty of having inspired the keyword match-define. Even if so, I find it dead-ugly now. define/match tells me define with match, and I can guess the rest.] 

If this were about changing the name of match-define to define/match, I'd have no objection, but the problem is that we now have two forms with names that are identical, modulo a stylistic choice. 

It's as though we had a let/values and a values-let; what kind of difference in meaning would a user expect to see between these two?

John

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4800 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20121016/7411d466/attachment.p7s>