On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 11:19:18 AM UTC-4, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > I propose that it's time for `#lang racket/base` to have a `define/provide`. > > (Out of all the possible combinations of definition forms and other > things we might often want to do with the defined identifier(s) at the > same time, the pair of `define` and `provide` together is overwhelmingly > the most common in my code. It might even be the normal case for me > that `define` is usually paired with a `provide`. Years ago, I moved to > putting `provide` right before the `define`, which was a win in a few > ways, but I always feel dumb typing "(provide foo)\n(define (foo ". I > haven't wanted to make a special package dependency or new `#lang` for > `define/provide`; I think `define/provide` belongs in `racket/base` now.) > > Neil V.
As I mentioned in my original post, I wasn't suggesting we emulate the Elixir behavior - I was really just curious about macro limitations :) `define/provide` seems a bit long to me. I also like the distinction between defining a function with define and indicating export behavior with provide. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
