Re: [racket] Which match macro is correct?

On 10/11/2011 09:23 PM, Niitsuma Hirotaka wrote: on Gauche work (use srfi-1) (use util.match) (match '(0 (1 2) (3 4 5)) [(a (b c) (d e f)) (list a b c d e f)]) ;;note this case (match '(0 (1 2) (3 4 5)) [`(,a (,b ,c) (,d ,e ,f)) (list a b c d e f)]) on Ra

Re: [racket] Which match macro is correct?

Niitsuma, Neither macro is incorrect, but there is no standard for a "match" macro in Scheme. Gauche and Racket have different pattern languages for their match macros. See their respective documentation at: http://practical-scheme.net/gauche/man/gauche-refe_176.html http://docs.racket-lang.org

[racket] Which match macro is correct?

on Gauche work (use srfi-1) (use util.match) (match '(0 (1 2) (3 4 5)) [(a (b c) (d e f)) (list a b c d e f)]) ;;note this case (match '(0 (1 2) (3 4 5)) [`(,a (,b ,c) (,d ,e ,f)) (list a b c d e f)]) on Racket Err #lang scheme (require racket/ma

Re: [racket] Learning Scheme and Racket

I highly recommend the talk "Macros Matter" by Robby Findler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBpfOpk-ZBU It is an excellent overview for people new to Racket macros. Dave On 10/11/2011 12:23 PM, Harry Spier wrote: Shriram Krishnamurti wrote: The phrase "a much, much more expressive macro syst

Re: [racket] unstable/match

Just now, Brian Mastenbrook wrote: > On 10/11/2011 02:19 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote: > > 10 minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > >> I don't plan to change it, but I do plan to move it to `racket/match'. > > > > Instead of a new keyword, why not use `equal?'? You can then define > > the others ins

Re: [racket] unstable/match

On 10/11/2011 02:19 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote: 10 minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: I don't plan to change it, but I do plan to move it to `racket/match'. Instead of a new keyword, why not use `equal?'? You can then define the others instead of the extra `comparator'. Alternatively, I thi

Re: [racket] Learning Scheme and Racket

Shriram Krishnamurti wrote: The phrase "a much, much more expressive macro system" is in your reddit list but I think does not capture this flavor (but what can?). Other than the Racket Guide are their tutorials or articles or case studies on writing and using Racket macros for someone who is

Re: [racket] unstable/match

10 minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > I don't plan to change it, but I do plan to move it to `racket/match'. Instead of a new keyword, why not use `equal?'? You can then define the others instead of the extra `comparator'. Alternatively, I think that `==' is a bad name, which looks confus

Re: [racket] unstable/match

On 10/11/2011 01:59 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: I don't plan to change it, but I do plan to move it to `racket/match'. Thanks! I don't mind it moving, but I didn't want to be surprised if the interface suddenly changed in the future. -- Brian Mastenbrook br...@mastenbrook.net http://brian

Re: [racket] unstable/match

I don't plan to change it, but I do plan to move it to `racket/match'. On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Brian Mastenbrook wrote: > What is the likelihood that the == match expander from unstable/match is > going to change in the future? It hasn't been changed since it was added > almost two years

[racket] unstable/match

What is the likelihood that the == match expander from unstable/match is going to change in the future? It hasn't been changed since it was added almost two years ago. I just came across a situation where I needed effectively this functionality, but as long as it's in unstable I'm not sure if I

[racket] lc with redex

To whom it concerns, A new lambda-calculus-with-redex version is available on my web page: http://www.telefonica.net/web2/koot/ Rodolfo Carvalho has been so kind as to indicate some typos and to convert my doc file to pdf. Thanks Rodolfo! Inform me, please, w

Re: [racket] Low level manipulation on numbers

Or the packed-binary package on PLaneT ( http://planet.racket-lang.org/display.ss?package=packed-binary.plt&owner=williams) that is useful for reading binary formatted files. From the package description: Performs conversions between Racket values and C structs represented as byte strings. It also

Re: [racket] Low level manipulation on numbers

Hi Nicolas, On 2011-10-08 12:41 PM, nicolas.o...@gmail.com wrote: > I am trying to write a small implementation of Protocol Buffers > ( http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/ ) and I have difficulties > with bit manipulations, especially to transform a negative integer into > a series of bytes and