I'm mildly against it, since it seems too easy to make parenthesis errors that are very confusing (ie if you move a paren from the end of one define to the end of a following define, the errors will get strange).
Robby On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > Does anyone know of a reason to not have an implicit `begin' in a > plain definition, translated into an implicit (let () ...) in racket? > > When I see things like this: > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8667403 > > I think that people expect the syntax of `define' to be uniform, so if > you can switch these: > > (define (foo x) (+ x 1)) > (define foo (+ 8 1)) > > then the expectation is for the same to work when there are multiple > expressions. > > -- > ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: > http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
