Be nice if it had 6 letters, tho. :)
Robby On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Matthias Felleisen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Perhaps the real (and simple) solution is to provide def+ > a form that explicitly rules out recursion. -- Matthias > > > > On Jun 3, 2012, at 10:06 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote: > >> 20 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote: >>> Years and years ago, we experimented with a let+ form that did >>> things like this, but nowadays define works in so many contexts that >>> it seems like the natural thing to use in situations like this. Of >>> course, I'm sure there are situations where define is suboptimal >>> (eg, see Eli's thread with the up and down arrows) but I'm finding >>> that I quite like using it everywhere. >> >> The thing is that `let*' is still very useful exactly because of the >> problems of `define' forms... (So I generally +1 the sentiment of >> making it easier to deal with multiple values, but I'd much rather see >> a better solution as I was thinking about in the other thread.) >> >> >> Just now, Neil Van Dyke wrote: >>> >>> Yes, I should have prefaced that I'm speaking out for the people who >>> refuse to submit to the injustices of internal "define". >> >> Other than the potential problems of `define' in creating a recursive >> definition by mistake (and gettting an #<undefined> value at runtime), >> do you have any other *concrete* objection to using `define' over >> `let'? >> >> -- >> ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: >> http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! >> ____________________ >> Racket Users list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
