> On Mar 11, 2019, at 1:18 PM, Brian Adkins <lojicdot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I want let semantics, but I've been using define more because it's preferred 
> in the Racket style guide. I don't want the behavior of define above, so 
> using letrec to get a runtime error instead of compile time error doesn't 
> make sense.
> 
> Oops - I should've used let* in my example. 


That wouldn’t change a thing in your example. 

If you meant you want a let* semantics for sequences of define, I think that’s 
a good idea. And as the author of the Style Guide, I wholeheartedly agree with 
this desire. When I replace let-s with define-s, I have gotten used to checking 
for identifier sequencing and such. But perhaps a newbie shouldn’t have to 
think that way. 

— Matthias




-- 
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.

Reply via email to