I too am in favor of when, unless, and cond being definition contexts.
But I don't understand what this fragment is supposed to illustrate.
If the body of a 'when' were a definition context, we'd get this being
the same as something like this, which seems to work exactly as it
should:
Welcome to Racket v5.0.1.8.
> (define (foo x)
(when (even? x) (let () (define x (add1 x)) (printf "increment\n")))
x)
> (foo 2)
add1: expects argument of type <number>; given #<undefined>
=== context ===
stdin::1: foo
/home/robby/git/gr2/collects/racket/private/misc.rkt:74:7
>
Maybe you're saying that people would be confused by that error?
Woudln't that already happen with
(define (foo x) (define x (add1 x)) x)
?
Robby
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
> I like mixing definitions and expressions -- maybe the bodies of
> `cond' etc should also allow it?
>
> The only downside I see is the possible confusion in somthing like
>
> (define (foo x)
> (when (even? x) (define x (add1 x)) (printf "increment\n"))
> x)
> ;; why isn't this working?
>
> but that seems like a minor point (without that `printf' you'd still
> get a syntax error; and the same confusion can already happen with
> `let' etc).
>
> --
> ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
> http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
> _________________________________________________
> For list-related administrative tasks:
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
>
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
