Just now, Jay McCarthy wrote: > match-define is something else Indeed it is -- which makes the whole thing even more confusing. I can't help imagining a newbie's reaction when they're told that
Oh, here's your mistake -- you've used match-define where you should have used define/match. IMO, this is bad enough to withdraw it if there's no good name for it. > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > > Two days ago, stch...@racket-lang.org wrote: > >> @deftogether[( > >> +@defform[(define/match (head args) match*-clause ...)] > >> @defform[(match-lambda clause ...)] > >> @defform[(match-lambda* clause ...)] > >> @defform[(match-let ([pat expr] ...) body ...+)] > > > > I don't know if nobody paid any attention to this, but the above looks > > *really* ugly. PleaseĀ³ rename it to `match-define'. > > > > (Yes, it's true that this won't get recognized as a definition form > > using drr's usual regexp, but that's already true for the other match > > forms.) -- ((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