[racket] One define to rule them all

A few seconds ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> 
> On Nov 13, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 
> > It does, but not in the above where `values' plays a keyword that
> > makes it expand to (define-values (a b) (values 1 2)).
> 
> That's what I said: it's highly non-obvious. 

Ah -- I really didn't parse that meaning out earlier.  I agree that
it's not obvious, which is why I said "obvious".  I also listed how
`let' gets similar extensions to demonstrate this.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!