[racket] `def' ?

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 06:19:00PM +0200, Laurent 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.

Long long ago I implemented a lispish language using a syntactic hack 
to reduce nesing.

( a b c / d e f / g h i)

is equivalent to

(a b c ( d e f ( g h i)))

I would line them up like this:

( a b c 
/ d e f 
/ g h i
)

This unnests a lot of constructions.

Of course, in Scheme you't probably have to find another symbol, because 
/ already has a meaning.


-- hendrik