> What you have written suggests that > you're writing a metafunction that returns a pict, which would mean > that the terms in your language are being represented as Racket-level > picts (instead of the usual Racket-level sexpressions).
Yes, that's what I'm trying to do. I want to convert an arbitrary term to a pict, to use in slideshow. > Anyways, if you want to render a term, you have to use lw->pict and > to-lw. It is more complex than it needs to be. I don't think this would work either, since to-lw is still a macro. Something like: (define-metafunction L [(x->pict x) ,(lw->pict (language-nts L) (to-lw x))]) still gives a pict of x for (term (x->pict y)). To get what I want, I figured out I can do: (define-metafunction L [(x->pict x) ,(text (symbol->string (term x)))]) > Also, if no one has pointed you there yet, the git head has a redex > tutorial now that includes some typesetting. (You'll find more in the > SEwPR book, which Matthias may have a copy to lend you.) > > Robby > > 2012/3/14 Stephen Chang <[email protected]>: >> Is there a way in redex to convert an arbitrary term to a pict? >> >> >> I have this language: >> >> #lang racket >> (require redex) >> >> (define-language L >> (e (λ x e) (e e) x) >> (x variable-not-otherwise-mentioned)) >> >> (define-metafunction L >> [(x->pict x) ,(render-term L x #f)]) >> >> >> and (term (x->pict x)) and (term (x->pict y)) both return a pict of x >> because render-term is a macro so x is treated as syntax and not as a >> pattern variable. Is there a way in redex to do what what I want? >> >> ____________________ >> Racket Users list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
