On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > 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.
Yes, that sounds very much like what I want to do. Will this sort of thing be possible in a future-Redex-with-modules? > 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. So, in other words, have a macro that generates a Redex grammar? I can give that a try. I did think that might be what I would end up doing, but wanted to see first if I could get the results I wanted without leaving Redex (and extending a base grammar was a kind of hacky attempt to stay within Redex). Thanks, Lindsey ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users