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 this)
>
> I agree that #:...bind is
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 ideal,
but I believe you helped me im
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) ..
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
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 simplicity):
5 matches
Mail list logo