In replying to the below, I'm not ignoring the rest of your message. > By, the way, why'd you decide on "numeq" instead of > "number=?".
I don't think there's a good verbal choice here (though numeq is especially ugly). You can already write plain ol' =, as in, =(1, 2) -- evaluates to --> false but people found it ugly and suggested something more "verbal". I'm not happy with numeq and welcome better suggestions. > Or, alternatively, why not use "as:" in place of the "=" in the > first line and then you can use "=" as a function on numbers. The first line of what? You mean in function definitions? 1. As I say above, you CAN already use = on numbers. 2. Just to be clear, the use of = in function headers is unrelated to the availability of = for numeric equality. The = there is just a keyword. In fact, the = in all three of deffun: f(x) = *(x, x) let: x = 3 in: *(x, x) =(1, 2) are independent: neither one precludes the other, and each could change without having any impact on the other. (That is, changing "=" to "as:" in function definitions would leave the other two completely unchanged. However, I rather like the function definition syntax and intend to leave it alone -- the "has:" for structures was because an = there would have been less accurate.) Shriram _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users