Just now, Jay McCarthy wrote:
> match-define is something else
Indeed it is -- which makes the whole thing even more confusing. I
can't help imagining a newbie's reaction when they're told that
Oh, here's your mistake -- you've used match-define where you should
have used define/match.
IMO, this is bad enough to withdraw it if there's no good name for it.
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
> > Two days ago, stch...@racket-lang.org wrote:
> >> @deftogether[(
> >> +@defform[(define/match (head args) match*-clause ...)]
> >> @defform[(match-lambda clause ...)]
> >> @defform[(match-lambda* clause ...)]
> >> @defform[(match-let ([pat expr] ...) body ...+)]
> >
> > I don't know if nobody paid any attention to this, but the above looks
> > *really* ugly. Please³ rename it to `match-define'.
> >
> > (Yes, it's true that this won't get recognized as a definition form
> > using drr's usual regexp, but that's already true for the other match
> > forms.)
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
