Re: [racket-users] Redex pattern for "sequence whose elements match this depth 0 pattern"?

I see what you mean and I can agree that rendering that with a D in this instance would have the meaning that people expect it to have. Nevertheless, contemplating changing the pattern language in that way is daunting and since you have a way around this, maybe best to just take it for now.

Re: [racket-users] Redex pattern for "sequence whose elements match this depth 0 pattern"?

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 07:05:52AM -0500, Robby Findler wrote: > I think the right way to approach such questions is to start from a more > realistic example and then ask "what do we want the typeset version of this > to look like?". I like this advice. Unfortunate, I think I want the typeset

Re: [racket-users] Redex pattern for "sequence whose elements match this depth 0 pattern"?

I think the right way to approach such questions is to start from a more realistic example and then ask "what do we want the typeset version of this to look like?". The answer, when looked at that way is almost never "extend the pattern language" since additional complexity there is not something

[racket-users] Redex pattern for "sequence whose elements match this depth 0 pattern"?

#lang scribble/doc Ha, you can run this email! In Redex, I have on several occasions found myself trying to use a pattern to constrain a sequence's member to match that pattern. i.e., I want to use a pattern bound at depth 0 to constrain a pattern at depth 1. Unfortunately, I can't do this, so it