On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > 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.
I think both names are in keeping with the appropriate conventions -- `match-define` is a variant of `define` but with patterns in the binding positions, just like `match-let` and `match-lambda` etc. I don't think this is any different from `regexp-match` vs `regexp-match*`, for example. -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
