Give me an awl and I'll get everything right out in the open. NO problem! Robby
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <s...@cs.brown.edu> wrote: > This is indeed a very confusing thread because we're talking about > requiring match but also requiring require, and while most "it"s refer > to a "require", some are to the former kind and some to the latter > kind. > > Of course, what I'm trying to say is completely clear in my head, so > if you didn't understand it, it must be your fault. (-: > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Robby Findler > <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: >> The "it" in your second sentence does not refer to "match", I take it? >> (That took me a _long_ time to figure out :). >> >> Robby >> >> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <s...@cs.brown.edu> >> wrote: >>> As I said, I don't know how match is implemented. It doesn't work for >>> constructs like *require* which have lots of sub-forms that are >>> actually *implemented* as top-level forms. So if you just import >>> "require", all you get is "require" -- not all the sub-clauses. >>> >> > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users