On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:40 AM, David Van Horn <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/29/12 7:31 AM, Carl Eastlund wrote: >> >> Having something like the "var" pattern can be useful for macros that >> expand into uses of match, if the macro doesn't want to expose that a >> bound variable will be a match pattern and therefore must not be "_" or >> "...". Granted, there are ways around this, but personally I think it >> would be nice if match supported this pattern. I would, however, >> entirely support renaming this pattern to something more obscure, like >> "match:pattern-variable" or something, so that unintentional uses stop >> being a problem. > > > I think the real solution is to have (whatever name you give) `var' be > something that is matched as an identifier and not a literal so that > programmers can rename the pattern. But I know from talking with Sam this > would be a big change for match.
Making `var` specifically be matched by binding would be possible -- it would be less of a change than removing it entirely. -- sam th [email protected] _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
