[racket] internal define in define

Is this "let over lambda", instead as "define over lambda"?

Actually in general, is the intent that define should be an
alternative to let in all cases?  Although you pay 2X typing the
symbol itself, you save parens and a level of indent? :)

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:24 AM, David Van Horn <dvanhorn at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> The grammar for define includes
>
>   (define id expr)
>
> but I wonder if this couldn't be relaxed to
>
>   (define id body)
>
> so that you could write things like
>
>   (define count
>     (define i 0)
>     (λ () (begin0 i (set! i (add1 i)))))
>
> David
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users