Handle multiple variables in define-let-to-multi-define

[Copilot]

Extends the define-let-to-double-define refactoring rule to handle multiple bindings in let expressions and renames it to define-let-to-multi-define to better reflect its new capability.

Problem

Previously, the rule could only refactor let expressions with a single binding:

(define a
  (let ([b 1])
    (+ b 10)))

would become:

(define b 1)
(define a (+ b 10))

However, it couldn't handle multiple bindings like this:

(define a
  (let ([b 1] [c 2])
    (+ b c 10)))

This is a valuable refactoring pattern that appears in real-world Racket code, such as in DrRacket.

Solution

The rule now accepts multiple bindings and generates the corresponding multiple define statements:

(define b 1)
(define c 2)
(define a (+ b c 10))

Safety checks ensure the refactoring only applies when:

• None of the new bindings would shadow existing identifiers in the context
• Later bindings don't depend on earlier ones (preventing invalid let* semantics)
• Free identifiers in the surrounding context aren't affected

Changes

• Extended pattern matching to accept [nested-id:id nested-expr:expr] ...+ instead of single binding
• Added check to prevent introducing bindings that conflict with existing identifiers
• Added check to ensure bindings are independent (no sequential dependencies)
• Renamed rule from define-let-to-double-define to define-let-to-multi-define
• Updated description to reflect that multiple defines may be produced
• Added comprehensive test suite covering single bindings, multiple bindings, and edge cases

All existing tests pass, confirming backward compatibility with single-binding cases.

Fixes #623

Original prompt

---

This section details on the original issue you should resolve

<issue_title>Handle multiple variables in define-let-to-double-define</issue_title>
<issue_description>The define-let-to-double-define rule can rewrite this:

(define a
  (let ([b 1])
    (+ b 10)))

to this:

(define b 1)
(define a (+ b 10))

But it can't rewrite this:

(define a
  (let ([b 1] [c 2])
    (+ b c 10)))

to this:

(define b 1)
(define c 2)
(define a (+ a b 10))

But that's a valuable refactoring to do, as seen here. The rule should also be renamed to define-let-to-multi-define since this could produce several definitions.</issue_description>

Comments on the Issue (you are @copilot in this section)

Fixes #627

---

✨ Let Copilot coding agent set things up for you — coding agent works faster and does higher quality work when set up for your repo.

[jackfirth]

Closing this in favor of fixing #641 first.