[racket-dev] redex metafunction contract for two separate languages?

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Robby Findler
<robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
>> 2. Support `define-union-language', without worrying too much about
>> its typesetting, because it would be primarily used for defining these
>> metafunctions and not explicitly described in a paper.
>
> I see. I'll think more about this option.
>
> One other design question: would having the same non-terminal name in
> both languages be allowed, or would it be some kind of
> union-of-the-productions operation? (I'm guess inclined to let it be
> an error so we can change that at some point in the future when we
> understand better what we'd want.)

I'd be fine with either choice here.
-- 
sam th
samth at ccs.neu.edu