I've pushed a fix for this. Thanks for the report! Robby
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Brian LaChance <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 4:32:15 PM UTC-4, Benjamin Chung wrote: >> There is a workaround. Instead of using a nice pretty pattern, we can >> instead escape to Racket, which would give us >> >> >> >> (define-metafunction L >> replace-with-0 : e -> e >> [(replace-with-0 (e ..._1)) ,(make-list (length (term (e ...))) 0)]) > > The following at least keeps you in the pattern language, but I'm hesitant to > say it's a nice pattern. I'd definitely like to see your first attempt > supported! > > (define-metafunction L > replace-with-0 : e -> e > [(replace-with-0 (e ...)) (any ...) > (where ((any _) ...) ((0 e) ...))]) > > I can imagine this trick being a pain for more complex patterns/terms. > Hopefully we can get something nicer :) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
