Two hours ago, Neil Toronto wrote:
> In internal definition contexts, I've been using the following macro
> to define everything but functions:
> [...]
In swindle, all of these do the "obvious" things:
(define (values a b) (values 1 2))
(let ([(values a b) (values 1 2)]) (+ a b))
(set! (values a b) (values b a))
and it's taking `values' as a keyword (no `match'), which means that
the usual function definition sugar works as expected. (If you want
to define your own `values', you'd need to use an explicit lambda form
for it.) Even more, `let' gets the same sugar:
(let ([(plus a b) (+ a b)]) (plus 1 2))
and "of course" `set!' does the syntactic thing that the common lisp
`setf' does:
-=> (define-struct foo (x))
-=> (define a (make-foo 123))
-=> (set! (foo-x a) 456)
-=> (foo-x a)
456
and another "of course" -- it has a `define-syntax-rule' -like form
that can define identifier macros, and the generalized `set!' expands
these so:
-=> (defsubst b (foo-x a))
-=> b
456
-=> (set! b 789)
-=> (foo-x a)
789
> Have I left anything out? Does anybody else think it's
> awesome/useful? Hideous?
"Questionable". It can be tricky to learn all the tricks if it's
taken to the above extremes.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
