On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Dan Liebgold <dan_liebg...@naughtydog.com> wrote:
> First, I'm trying to define a syntax-class that is just a set of literals, > and I'm wondering if there is a slightly better way that this: > > * http://pasterack.org/pastes/86722 > > I'd just prefer to not repeat all the literal definitions. > Here's an idea, inspired by the `define-literal-set` macro Vincent posted in the other thread. http://pasterack.org/pastes/22325 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
