Oh, okay, that makes complete sense. Thanks.
~Leif Andersen
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> Oh, I understand Jens Axel to be doing something more subtle than
> that. In particular, in his example check syntax sees two distinct
> identifiers (sym and sym?) that have over
Oh, I understand Jens Axel to be doing something more subtle than
that. In particular, in his example check syntax sees two distinct
identifiers (sym and sym?) that have overlapping ranges. When you
rename one, it just renames that one and hopes for the best. (Well, to
see what it actually does, yo
So then, out of curiosity, how does it do this for structs? (I thought it
was using sub-range-binders there.)
For example:
If I have the program:
#lang racket
(struct foo (bar))
(define x (foo 2))
(foo-bar x)
I can use the rename tool to rename bar to baz and get:
#lang racket
(struct foo (bar
No, I don't think that this can be made to work with the current
sub-range-binders. The way DrRacket thinks about this is that those
are two different binders (symb and symb?), and you are renaming
either one of them or the other one. It can't connect them the way you
are seeming to want to connect
Hi All,
I am experimenting with the sub-range-binders syntax property.
Given this program:
(define symb? symbol?)
(define-no? symb?)
symb
I want to use DrRacket's renaming facility to rename the symb? in the
second line to sym?.
I expect to get this program:
(define sym? symbo
5 matches
Mail list logo
