On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Carl Eastlund <c...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > Match patterns are macro-extensible. Just about any s-expression is a > potential match pattern. I don't think there's anything for a syntax > class to discern, just accept whatever someone puts there, and trust > expansion to sort out any errors.
Technically, this isn't correct, because the syntax class could do what `match' does, and look for uses of the `match' extension mechanisms. However, there aren't any syntax classes that do this. I've experimented in the past with trying to write such a syntax class for the implementation of `match', but it hasn't been finished, and may require further extensions to `syntax-parse' before that happens. When it does, I'll try to remember to export a syntax class as a recognizer for others to use. In the meantime, I recommend following Carl's advice. sam th > > Carl Eastlund > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:20 AM, John Clements > <cleme...@brinckerhoff.org> wrote: >> If I want to use syntax-parse to define a syntactic form that expands into a >> use of 'match', is there a built-in syntax class that >> recognizes 'match' patterns? Unfortunately, searching for 'match' and >> 'pattern' in the syntax-parse docs isn't so helpful... :). >> >> John > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev > -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
