Re: [racket-users] syntax-class that is just a set of literals

2016-11-18 Thread Dan Liebgold
Urg... google groups behaved oddly for me... I posted this original thread but it never showed up for me, so I posted a 2nd thread (the one you linked to). I'm not sure what actually happened, but at least the other thread has lots of good info. -- You received this message because you are s

Re: [racket-users] syntax-class that is just a set of literals

2016-11-18 Thread Ben Greenman
Typo: I meant "the `define-literal-syntax-class` macro", from here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/racket-users/9e_oNlLODeY/MUqGM_r6BwAJ On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Ben Greenman wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Dan Liebgold > wrote: > >> First, I'm trying to define a syntax-cla

Re: [racket-users] syntax-class that is just a set of literals

2016-11-18 Thread Ben Greenman
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Dan Liebgold wrote: > First, I'm trying to define a syntax-class that is just a set of literals, > and I'm wondering if there is a slightly better way that this: > > * http://pasterack.org/pastes/86722 > > I'd just prefer to not repeat all the literal definitions

[racket-users] syntax-class that is just a set of literals

2016-11-18 Thread Dan Liebgold
Hi, A couple questions regarding literals in syntax-parse: First, I'm trying to define a syntax-class that is just a set of literals, and I'm wondering if there is a slightly better way that this: * http://pasterack.org/pastes/86722 I'd just prefer to not repeat all the literal definitions.