Eli, can you explain again -- perhaps in different words -- why define/match is a bad name? I understand that we have match-define and define/match now. While I agree that having two of these forms with remotely related functionality is possibly confusing, I don't see why match-define is really a better kind of name than define/match.
If you are saying, that define/match is bad because it is too distinct from match-define I understand the name argument. [I might be guilty of having inspired the keyword match-define. Even if so, I find it dead-ugly now. define/match tells me define with match, and I can guess the rest.]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
