On 10/11/2011 02:19 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
10 minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
I don't plan to change it, but I do plan to move it to `racket/match'.
Instead of a new keyword, why not use `equal?'? You can then define
the others instead of the extra `comparator'. Alternatively, I think
that `==' is a bad name, which looks confusing in useful cases like
(== 3 =)
(== 10<)
and I think that the order of compared arguments should change, so
the last one matches things that are smaller than 10, and things like
`memq' can be used too. Something like
(?? 3 =)
(?? 10<)
(?? memq '(1 2 3))
(?? x) looks a bit funny, doesn't it? Would you get rid of the implicit
comparator? And I think you meant (?? '(1 2 3) memq) in the third
example, or for the others to be reversed to be more similar to the ?
pattern.
Personally I think that == is a fine name; reversing the order of the
operands to the comparator probably makes sense and wouldn't affect me
at all.
--
Brian Mastenbrook
[email protected]
http://brian.mastenbrook.net/
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
