[racket] case-lam structure allowing indirects?

From: Jay McCarthy (jay.mccarthy at gmail.com)
Date: Wed Sep 1 13:53:33 EDT 2010

zo-parse is a work in progress. We're discovering as we go what the
contracts should be. This is a case where the documentation must be
wrong. We'll change it.


On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Danny Yoo <dyoo at cs.wpi.edu> wrote:
> I'm using Racket 5.0.1 and the compiler/zo-parse module.  On some of
> the structures I'm getting back, I'm seeing that a case-lam structure
> has a clause that's an indirect, rather than a lam.  The documentation
> for 5.0.1 says that a clause has to be a lam though.  Is this
> intentional?
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users

Jay McCarthy <jay at cs.byu.edu>
Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University

"The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93

Posted on the users mailing list.