Hello all, I've been hacking on some languages in Redex, and found myself abstracting commons parts into base languages, and gradually building new languages via `define-extended-language' and `define-union-language'. Unfortunately, I hit a wall when I discovered `define-union-language' doesn't like to union languages that define the same nonterminals.
Consider this toy example: https://gist.github.com/bluephoenix47/5054403 This seems like a sensible thing to want to do, so I forked racket wrote a patch: https://github.com/bluephoenix47/racket/commit/0a7781b2be2643778f8d8d10d771ab1ce2dc622b Unfortunately, several Redex tests fail (http://sprunge.us/fPHU) because they expect an error when languages which define the same nonterminals are used in `define-union-language'. Is this *desired* behavior? If so, why? It seems very reasonable to want to merge the nonterminals of languages. -- William J. Bowman
pgp-signature.txt
Description: Digital Signature
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
