A few minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I think both names are in keeping with the appropriate conventions --
> `match-define` is a variant of `define` but with patterns in the
> binding positions, just like `match-let` and `match-lambda` etc. I
> don't think this is any different from `regexp-match` vs
> `regexp-match*`, for example.
Yes, both names follow conventions, only different ones. It's the
mixture of convention that make the above newbie situation look so
ridiculously confusing.
--
((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
