--- On Mon, 5/7/12, Patrick Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello all, in a quest for greater concision, I'm looking for a > way to abstract over the following code containing mostly > definitions. Is there an accepted practice for abstraction over > definition introduction? > > > (define top-right-x > (lambda (a-grid-plane a-cell) > > The next three definitions are what I am looking to abstract > over, as they show up in many similarly defined functions. > > (match-define (cell row-pos col-pos) a-cell) > > > (define cell-size (grid-plane->cell-size a-grid-plane)) > > (match-define (size cell-w cell-h) cell-size) > > (+ cell-w > (* col-pos cell-w)))) > > (define top-right-y > > (lambda (a-grid-plane a-cell) > > (match-define (cell row-pos col-pos) a-cell) > > (define cell-size (grid-plane->cell-size a-grid-plane)) > > (match-define (size cell-w cell-h) cell-size) > > > (* row-pos cell-w))) > > How should I approach this? are my options parameters, leaving > as is, a with- macro?
(define (get-cell-info a-cell a-grid-plane) (match-define (cell row-pos col-pos) a-cell) (define cell-size (grid-plane->cell-size a-grid-plane)) (match-define (size cell-w cell-h) cell-size) (list col-pos row-pos cell-w cell-h cell-size)) In the future, make sure that your posts are in plain text. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
