On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 6:12 PM, <as...@racket-lang.org> wrote: > > + ;; Note: in practice it's unlikely that the second pattern will ever > come up > + ;; because the sequence number for '() will be low and the > union will > + ;; be sorted by sequence number. As a paranoid precaution, > however, > + ;; we will match against both patterns here. > + (syntax/loc stx (or (Mu: var-pat (Union: (list (Value: '()) (Pair: > elem-pat (F: var-pat))))) > + (Mu: var-pat (Union: (list (Pair: elem-pat (F: > var-pat)) (Value: '()))))))])))
Let's just make this a documented assumption, and save ourselves all some pain. Sam _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
