Oh wow, that's impressively better than what I wrote! I didn't know one
could have *recursive* macros, to say nothing about the proper usage of
syntax-parse.
Thank you very much for your quick answer!
-
Sergiu
On Wednesday, December 16, 2020 at 11:03:49 PM UTC+1 sorawe...@gmail.com
wrote:
syntax-parse can already perform pattern matching. No need to use match
(define-syntax (multi-compose stx)
(syntax-parse stx
[(_ f:expr g:expr)
#'(compose f g)]
[(_ f:expr funcs:expr ...)
#'(compose f (multi-compose funcs ...))]))
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 1:37 PM
On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 6:01:52 PM UTC+1 unlimitedscolobb wrote:
> On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 5:49:43 PM UTC+1 hen...@topoi.pooq.com
> wrote:
>
> A macro might be able to generate either of the above from
>> (comp f g h k)
>> .
>>
> Indeed. I'm re-reading the docs on macros
On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 9:51:50 PM UTC+1 Ben Greenman wrote:
> >> A package for compose-n and compose-3 to like 10 or 20?
>
> Yes
>
> I like the idea of _small packages that do one thing_ better than
> _one-stop all-utility packages_ ... but do what you think makes sense.
>
Sounds
>> A package for compose-n and compose-3 to like 10 or 20?
Yes
I like the idea of _small packages that do one thing_ better than
_one-stop all-utility packages_ ... but do what you think makes sense.
>> Someday later, perhaps poly dots and #:rest-star can combine to
>> improve the built-in
On Thursday, December 10, 2020 at 5:49:43 PM UTC+1 hen...@topoi.pooq.com
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 10:16:16PM -0800, unlimitedscolobb wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure whether macros could be of use here. I'll give it a think.
>
> Idea: Have a look at parendown
>
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 10:16:16PM -0800, unlimitedscolobb wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 11:50:26 PM UTC+1 Ben Greenman wrote:
>
> > > If the answer is no, is there any interest in including these three
> > > functions (as well as compose-5, 6, 7, 8) into Typed Racket?
> >
> > I
On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 11:50:26 PM UTC+1 Ben Greenman wrote:
> > If the answer is no, is there any interest in including these three
> > functions (as well as compose-5, 6, 7, 8) into Typed Racket?
>
> I think these would be excellent in a package.
>
> A package for compose-n and
> If the answer is no, is there any interest in including these three
> functions (as well as compose-5, 6, 7, 8) into Typed Racket?
I think these would be excellent in a package.
Someday later, perhaps poly dots and #:rest-star can combine to
improve the built-in type.
--
You received this
Hello,
I've found out that compose in Typed Racket has the type
(: compose (All (a b c) (-> (-> b c) (-> a b) (-> a c
which means that Typed Racket's compose can only combine two functions at a
time.
In untyped code, I tend to use compose to combine more functions (e.g., 7),
so I wrote
10 matches
Mail list logo
