[Chicken-users] Re: Style Guide

[Tobia Conforto]

Mark Fredrickson wrote:
> 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).

Yes, I'm correcting my style based on those documents too.


> 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.

I'm no experienced schemer, but I like the second form best because it
makes it visually clear how the function will be called: looking at
(square x) it's obvious what the parameters and their formal names are.

When I see a (square 3) later on in the code, I will recognize it
instantly ("visually") as an application of (define (square x) ...)

Plus it's shorter.


Tobia