On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Matthias Felleisen <[email protected]> wrote: > Can we inspect all define- names in our base and consider deleting the > define- part? Thanks -- Matthias
I thoroughly agree with Carl about this being a bad idea. With that said, here's the list: core definition forms: define-values define-syntaxes define-values-for-syntax define define-for-syntax define-syntax versions of define-struct: define-contract-struct define-struct define-struct/derived define-struct/contract class forms: define/augment-final define/override define/private define/public define/augride define/overment define/pubment define/override-final define/public-final define/augment unit definition forms: define-compound-unit define-unit/s define-unit-binding define-unit/contract define-unit/new-import-export define-unit-from-context define-compound-unit/infer define-unit define-signature things that have to bind static info (like `define-struct'): define-member-name define-local-member-name define-serializable-class* define-serializable-class define-match-expander define-signature-form define-namespace-anchor define-sequence-syntax define-opt/c macros over existing definition forms: define-values/invoke-unit define-syntax-rule define-values/invoke-unit/infer define/contract -- sam th [email protected] _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
