That is not an internal definition. This is an internal definition: (define (foo x) (define i 10) (define j 12) (+ x i j))
It is preferred because there is no right-ward shift and it unifies the top-level more with local definition contexts---which in my mind is good for understanding and copy/pasting it. The only reason you wouldn't like it, IMHO, is when you would use a let* that re-binds: (let* ([x 2] [x (+ x 4)] ...) != (define x 2) (define x (+ x 4)) ... It would be nice if we had a define* like define-package has. Jay On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Jordan Schatz <jor...@noionlabs.com> wrote: > From Racket v5.2 release notes: > > > Internal-definition expansion has changed to use let* semantics for > > sequences that contain no back references. This change removes a > > performance penalty for using internal definitions instead of let in > > common cases, and it only changes the meaning of programs that capture > > continuations in internal definitions. Internal definitions are now > > considered preferable in style to let. > > I'm not sure that I understand, but if I have it figured out then this: > > (define (foo x) > (local [(define i 10) > (define j 12)] > (+ x i j))) > > Is now considered better style then this? > > (define (foo2 x) > (let ([i 10] > [j 12]) > (+ x i j))) > > Why? > > Shalom, > Jordan > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users > -- Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
