#|
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?
Much appreciated all,
-Patrick
|#
____________________
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
