That happens to the best and worst of us. I switch among syntax-rule, syntax-rules, syntax-case, and syntax-parse. I have made the same mistake as your friend.
On Nov 8, 2012, at 10:06 AM, Greg Hendershott wrote: > In general I love internal define and have been using it heavily. > > After the initial infatuation, I still love it. I've also come to > appreciate that sometimes let can be clearer. I like having the > choice. > > Another way internal define can bite you is if you're not real crisp > on your understanding of certain forms with optional parts. For > instance syntax-case clauses. Let's say I have a friend (ahem) who > didn't really grok the optional guard/fender part, but that hadn't > mattered when writing stuff like: > > (syntax-case stx () > [(_ my pattern) > (let ([id rhs]) > #'(my template))]) > > One day tries: > > (syntax-case stx () > [(_ my pattern) > (define id rhs) > #'(my template)]) > > This friend of mine (cough) was confused for awhile before figuring it out. > > Of course the primary problem here is me^H^H my friend didn't know > this aspect of syntax-case clauses. I'm just saying that switching > from let to define can flush out some misunderstandings. Shrug. > ____________________ > 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
