Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Style Guide

[Mark Fredrickson]

> William Ramsay wrote:
> > Is there such a thing as a Chicken/Scheme style guide? [...] If there
> > is such a thing as teaching an old dog new tricks I'd like to try.
>
> Your last sentence makes me think that you're referring to algorithm
> design, not mere syntax style.  Things like learning to use closures and
> continuations effectively, learning to express iterative processes with
> recursive syntax, and so on.

There is certainly a idiomatic style of Scheme, but I think the actual
style as defined by the layout of the source code matters as well.
Those two documents were useful reads to some who frets over such
issues (me).

Here's a related question for more experienced Schemers: In Dybvig, he
states that the define form:

(define square (lambda (x) (* x x)))

is to be preferred to

(define (square x) (* x x))

After reading that, I started using the first form religiously. Now
I'm not so sure. For no small part because the text editor I use
(TextMate) doesn't highlight the first form as a function definition
but does highlight the second form.

Anyone have an opinion? I'm not looking for an opinion, but perhaps a
tip as to why one method might prove more useful as I release code or
maintain code that I've already written.

TIA,
-M