[racket] `def' ?

From: Jon Rafkind (rafkind at cs.utah.edu)
Date: Thu May 10 12:15:21 EDT 2012

"Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding."


On 05/10/2012 09:54 AM, Greg Hendershott wrote:
> Should `def' be added as an alias for `define'?
> Possible reasons why:
> 1. Most frequently used.
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/2012-May/009429.html
> 2. Name shortening seems to be a current theme.
> 3. The new style guide prefers `define' over `let'.
> Re 3 I like the less-indented benefit of `define' instead of `let'.
> OTOH it's more verbose.
> Speaking of which, it also might be handy to `define' multiple
> identifiers in one shot, as `let' can do. (Although perhaps the syntax
> would need to be ugly due to how `define' is used also to define
> functions. I haven't even tried to think that through; sorry.)
> Possible reasons why not:
> 1. It smells too much like Clojure? (Although I suppose you could
> argue `define' smells like classic Scheme.)
> 2. ?
> ____________________
>   Racket Users list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users

Posted on the users mailing list.