Just now, John Clements wrote:
>
> 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 not -- they have two different meanings.
> 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?
Exactly. (I'll reply more to Matthias's question.)
--
((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
