On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 00:10, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
> 20 minutes ago, Rodolfo Carvalho wrote: > > It is possible to replace a pattern like this: > > > > (cond > > [..a..] > > [else (cond > > [..b..] > > ...)]) > > > > With this simpler: > > > > (cond > > [..a..] > > [..b..] > > ...) > > Speaking about such transformations and about things like (if E #t #f), > I have some code which I run against student submissions to find style > problems like these, and using syntax transformations means that it's > easy to make it actually suggest the transformation. For example, > feeding it this code: > [...] Sounds really interesting! Maybe it would be like a "Racket-lint" ;) BTW I just found the nested-cond pattern appearing on HtDP, throughout section 9: http://htdp.org/2003-09-26/Book/curriculum-Z-H-13.html
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
