Re: [racket-users] Redex: difficulty with #refers-to

2017-06-27 Thread 'William J. Bowman' via Racket Users
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 07:21:48PM -0500, Robby Findler wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:23 PM, 'William J. Bowman' via Racket Users > wrote: > > (Unfortunately, there is a known bug in Redex that #...bind is > > undocumented, so you had no way to know about

Re: [racket-users] Redex: difficulty with #refers-to

2017-06-27 Thread Robby Findler
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:23 PM, 'William J. Bowman' via Racket Users wrote: > (Unfortunately, there is a known bug in Redex that #...bind is undocumented, > so you had no way to know about this) I agree that #:...bind is complex and the documentation is not

Re: [racket-users] Redex: difficulty with #refers-to

2017-06-27 Thread Justin Pombrio
On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 4:23:35 PM UTC-4, William J. Bowman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:21:59AM -0700, Justin Pombrio wrote: > > I'm trying to define a language in Redex that includes a list of top-level > > function definitions: > > > > (p ::= > > (prog (defun (x x) e)

Re: [racket-users] Redex: difficulty with #refers-to

2017-06-27 Thread 'William J. Bowman' via Racket Users
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:21:59AM -0700, Justin Pombrio wrote: > I'm trying to define a language in Redex that includes a list of top-level > function definitions: > > (p ::= > (prog (defun (x x) e) ... e)) > > And all function names should be in scope in all function bodies (other

[racket-users] Redex: difficulty with #refers-to

2017-06-27 Thread Justin Pombrio
I'm trying to define a language in Redex that includes a list of top-level function definitions: (p ::= (prog (defun (x x) e) ... e)) And all function names should be in scope in all function bodies (other things should be in scope as well, but I'm ignoring them here for