On the other hand, it would be a real stress test. So if you’re up to it, try to use the binding mechanism and post on the list how you’re doing. — Matthias
> On Jun 2, 2016, at 7:49 AM, Robby Findler <[email protected]> wrote: > > It is designed for lexical scope, yes. If you have a language with > it's own interesting, non-standard notion of scope, you will probably > have to (and, indeed, want to) model it explicitly. > > Robby > > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Leandro Facchinetti <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Woah, cool! >>> >>> Since the book was written, we have added support for binding >>> specifications to Redex. It's documentation is still in the process of >>> being improved, but you might have some interest in checking it out >>> (it is the part after #:binding-forms). >> >> I read the documentation and this feature is really impressive. In >> particular, I liked that Redex is able to recognize that two terms are >> alpha-equivalent! >> >> The way I understood from my first reading, it seems like the binding >> feature handles well lexical scoping. Would it be able to support a >> language with dynamic scoping? >> >> I ask that because I'm currently working on a language which notion of >> scoping is something in between lexical and dynamic. >> >>> Bugs in substitution functions are the worst. >> >> Indeed :) >> -- >> Leandro Facchinetti <[email protected]> >> https://www.leafac.com >> GPG key: 3DF3D583 > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
