On 11/29/12 1:45 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:40 AM, David Van Horn <dvanh...@ccs.neu.edu> 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.

I would still like the default to be something other than `var'.

(BTW, it looks like `var' is not an indexed term in the docs for match.)

David

_________________________
 Racket Developers list:
 http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev

Reply via email to