On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > >> 2. Support `define-union-language', without worrying too much about >> its typesetting, because it would be primarily used for defining these >> metafunctions and not explicitly described in a paper. > > I see. I'll think more about this option. > > One other design question: would having the same non-terminal name in > both languages be allowed, or would it be some kind of > union-of-the-productions operation? (I'm guess inclined to let it be > an error so we can change that at some point in the future when we > understand better what we'd want.)
I'd be fine with either choice here. -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
