Lindsey, in your case, I believe the 'rabbit hole' can be avoided. >From what I understand each family in lambdaLVar is (almost) uniformly generated from a grammar 'functor' that receives a lattice (let's say one for now), computes some grammatical clauses -- and may add some primitive operations for working on the lattice, which is trivial -- and returns that grammar.
The reduction relation itself does not depend on the generated grammar other than the notion of value you need for beta-v. So, I think that you could use _Racket_'s syntax system to compute the grammar. This is quite different from extending a base grammar with new features or value clauses but as I said at the beginning, it is closer to the way you describe lambdaLVar. ;; --- On an unrelated note, you may wish to experiment with lambdaLVar as a #lang so that you can write programs. Since you seem to be designing a PL, I consider the practical evaluation as at least as important as a reduction semantics. Just a thought. [My gain for Racket would be that someone who does parallel 'stuff' uses our parallel features.] -- Matthias On Apr 3, 2013, at 8:02 PM, Lindsey Kuper <lku...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote: > I have a rather involved Redex question that I was originally going to > send to this list, but it got long enough that it was crying out for > hyperlinks and code formatting. So, here it is on Stack Overflow: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15800167/plt-redex-parameterizing-a-language-definition > > Nevertheless, I suspect that if there's anyone who can help, they're > on this list, so I'd appreciate any responses, whether here or there. > Thanks! > > Lindsey > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
