> On that topic, are there any opinions on changing the name from > `define-simple-macro` to something else? It's always struck me as odd.
+1 for changing the name. It definitely comes off as strange in both the “simple” and “macro” terminology. ;) > define-syntax-parse > define-rule > define-rewrite We already have define-syntax-parser, so the first one could be confusing, and I think define-rule is a little too general to get the meaning across. define-rewrite comes closer, but it still doesn’t feel like the right phrase. What about mixing them: define-rewrite-rule? > What about just calling it define-syntax-rule? How many things would actually > break? If syntax-parse is The Way To Write Macros, shouldn't the simple > single-rule macro-defining syntax in #lang racket reflect that? The same > thing could probably be said for syntax-rules as well. I like this idea in principle, but I think that would warrant a bigger overhaul than just changing the name of “define-simple-macro”. It feels like a good racket2 feature. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/C902C33F-A1DD-4AEE-80E4-4D43B7D7E78C%40gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
