A few minutes ago, Prabhakar Ragde wrote: > Sam wrote: > > > Unlike, say, `syntax-parse', `match' isn't designed for the > > use-case of building ASTs while matching. > > Wait, what? That's exactly what I want to use it for when writing > toy interpreters for pedagogical purposes. Or am I misunderstanding > what you're saying here? I want to do PLAI-style things, but with > `match' instead of `type-case'. --PR
Sam is talking about building the ASTs *while* matching, which is what Jay was trying to do with uses of `app'. I think that a teaching context is in particular one where such a thing doesn't fit -- it obscures the distinction between the side the sexpr goes into, and the side where an AST comes out. -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev