On Aug 25, 2012, at 10:53 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Matthias Felleisen > <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >> >> I would almost prefer the use of 'when' for 'where' and the introduction of >> 'unless'. > > If we did this, then there could be no judgment-forms name 'when' or > 'unless', which makes me think we shouldn't do this.
I don't understand this point at all.
>> The type setting of 'when' could still use 'where' as the English word (and
>> perhaps we can have a way to override it).
>>
>> I am not sure how to type set 'unless' other than by providing a the
>> negative operator as an argument !=
>
> Using \neq{} seems right to me.
What if you want \not\in or \not\subtype and such?
-- Matthias
>
> Robby
>
>> -- Matthias
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 22, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Had a question/feature request for Redex. In various models, I've
>>> encountered situations where I wanted the dual behavior to the
>>> (where pattern term) clause of Redex (i.e., does term *not* match this
>>> pattern).
>>>
>>> In the past, I've used side-conditions or where clauses with predicate
>>> metafunctions for this case. For example,
>>> (side-condition ,(not (redex-match ...)))
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> (where #f (matches this that))
>>>
>>> Both of these have the disadvantage that it's more work to typeset.
>>> It would be convenient to have a form like
>>> (where-not pattern term)
>>>
>>> that would typeset like the following:
>>>
>>> where term ≠ pattern
>>>
>>> This seems like a common enough pattern that it would be nice to support
>>> it as a built-in (and typeset) construct. Does that seem like a
>>> reasonable thing to add?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Asumu
>>> ____________________
>>> Racket Users list:
>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>>
>>
>> ____________________
>> Racket Users list:
>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
