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?
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
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
3 matches
Mail list logo
