[ sorry for the long delay in getting back to this ]
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Alex Knauth wrote:
>
>> On Oct 19, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Alexis King wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 19, 2016, at 4:06 AM, Robby Findler
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's the best approach we currently have. Of course, we could s
> On Oct 19, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Alexis King wrote:
>
>> On Oct 19, 2016, at 4:06 AM, Robby Findler
>> wrote:
>>
>> That's the best approach we currently have. Of course, we could support a
>> new property that was "connect srclocs" or something.
>
> Do you think it would make sense to have
> On Oct 19, 2016, at 4:06 AM, Robby Findler
> wrote:
>
> That's the best approach we currently have. Of course, we could support a new
> property that was "connect srclocs" or something.
Do you think it would make sense to have a property that uses
bound-identifier=? rather than free-identif
That's the best approach we currently have. Of course, we could support a
new property that was "connect srclocs" or something.
One thing to keep in mind is renaming too tho.
I would welcome patches. :)
Robby
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Alexis King wrote:
> I have a macro that does someth
I have a macro that does something that approximates binding. It looks
like this:
(∀ [α] (→ α α))
Obviously, I’d really like it if the αs had binding arrows drawn to
them. The trouble, unfortunately, is that ∀ does not expand to a binding
form at all; it is parsed in a single macro step to a va
5 matches
Mail list logo
