> (define-syntax (match-for stx) That's nice.
Sometimes I wish I could do the general thing -- use `match` patterns in the binding clauses for any `for`-family form. I often do something like this: (define xs (list (cons 1 2) (cons 3 4))) (for ([x (in-list xs)]) (match-define (cons a b) x) (use a b)) Instead it would be nice to write: (for ([(match-define (cons a b)) (in-list xs)]) (use a b)) Or even just: (for ([(cons a b c) (in-list xs)]) (use a b)) In the grammar, `id` becomes `id-or-match-pattern`. On the other hand, this would only really help in simple `match-define` destructuring -- as opposed to using `match` to handle variations in the data. And although I do the former a lot, I do the latter even more. -- 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.