On Oct 16, 2012, at 12:58 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: >> A few minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: >>>> A few minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >>> >>> Unfortunately, we have only one thing we can vary here -- the name. >>> So while I'd be happy to hear better names for `define/match`, it >>> would be wrong to call it `match-define`, and it's a valuable form >>> and I plan to keep it. >> >> Yes, the name is what should vary here, I had nothing to say about >> what it does. Please¹⁷ change it. Even a `match-define*' would be >> better than `define/match'. > > `match-define*` would be much worse -- it isn't a variant on > `match-define`, nor does it resemble any of the other `match-X` forms.
Data point: I have no idea what define/match does, and the name by itself does nothing to enlighten me. John
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
