> (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.
