Re: [racket-dev] for/match construct?

2011-10-25 Thread J. Ian Johnson
I don't like either. I'd rather shadowing, as it is more consistent with how I would conceive of a * binding pattern. -Ian - Original Message - From: Sam Tobin-Hochstadt To: J. Ian Johnson Cc: dev Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 20:23:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [racket-dev] for/match construct?

Re: [racket-dev] for/match construct?

2011-10-25 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
Matthew and I talked about this today, and we decided that we should create a parallel set of matchized versions of the `for' macros, rather than my previous experiment which added an `in-match' form that changed the semantics of `for' clause bindings. I've started implementing this; fortunately i

[racket-dev] for/match construct?

2011-10-25 Thread J. Ian Johnson
I'm considering putting in some effort to generalize the binding construct in for-clauses so that we can have for[*]/match/X macros. This will require modifying and exposing define-for-variants (due to circularity in requiring match in for). Does anyone object? I'll of course need the code revie