[racket] `def' ?

Btw, for me, probably as for others, the problem is not really to type
`define', since I have a keybinding shortcut for that, but that it takes
too much visual space when my eye should rather not be lost in too much
information on the screen so as to focus on the important parts of the
code. Personal taste, though.

Laurent

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Laurent <laurent.orseau at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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/b050a164/attachment.html>