[racket] One define to rule them all

Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> Would you have been happier if match-define had been named define-match, the way it should have been done if we had insisted on consistency in coding guidelines? 
> 
> Your cond would have looked like this: 
> 
>  (cond ...
>        [(condition? z-sig)
>         (define x (compute-x z))
>         (define-match (foo y-bar y-baz) ...)
>         (define-values (a b) ...)
>         (define (f x y z w) 0)
>         (the-computation x y-baz a b)]
>        ...)

I think so. I might not even mind the extra verboseness. It's certainly 
easier to read.

You and your coding guidelines. :p

Neil T