[racket] `def' ?

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Greg Hendershott <greghendershott at gmail.com
> 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.
>

I agree.  I would probably prefer `def' for inner definitions, but stick
with `define' for top-level ones. Maybe.

>
> Possible reasons why not:
> 1. It smells too much like Clojure? (Although I suppose you could
> argue `define' smells like classic Scheme.)
>

Not imitating good ideas is not really a sign of great intelligence I
believe. That does not mean this one is good, just saying.

Laurent
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20120510/d89e895e/attachment.html>