On Oct 16, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > 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.]
If this were about changing the name of match-define to define/match, I'd have no objection, but the problem is that we now have two forms with names that are identical, modulo a stylistic choice. It's as though we had a let/values and a values-let; what kind of difference in meaning would a user expect to see between these two? John
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
