[plt-scheme] [redex] language keywords

Yes, I do use term-let and that's (at least up to now) exactly where  
the problem manifests!

Should I be using something else?

-- Éric

On Jun 2, 2010, at 22:40, Casey Klein <clklein at eecs.northwestern.edu>  
wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Carl Eastlund <cce at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Casey Klein
>> <clklein at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Eric Tanter  
>>> <etanter at dcc.uchile.cl> wrote:
>>>>>> Is there something as simple/direct as the list of keywords in  
>>>>>> syntax-rules/syntax-case?
>>>>>> If not, any alternative suggestion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Éric
>>>>>
>>>>> Take a look at variable-prefix.  In my latest Redex work,  
>>>>> variables
>>>>> all start with x, y, or z, and I just have to avoid any keywords  
>>>>> that
>>>>> start with those.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Carl,
>>>>
>>>> I'm using these as well, actually.
>>>> A problem I have is that, for readability, I have a non-terminal  
>>>> which is define as (x >> x) where '>>' is a keyword. I know I  
>>>> could just use (x x) for exactly the same, but it does enhance  
>>>> readability.
>>>> The problem is that >> is considered as a pattern variable...
>>>>
>>>> with macros I could just say:
>>>> (syntax-rules (>>)
>>>>  ((x >> x) ...))
>>>>
>>>> Any idea?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't follow. The variables in a Redex pattern are always named
>>> after non-terminals, so I don't see how >> could be treated as a
>>> pattern variable.
>>>
>>> Do you mean that >> matches one of your six classes of variables?
>>
>> Is it possible Eric is using one of the forms that match using
>> syntax-case instead of the Redex pattern matcher?  Do term-let and
>> where clauses still work that way?
>
> Oh, good thinking! term-let uses syntax-case, but where clauses no  
> longer do.
>
>> (And if not, Eric, what version of PLT Scheme are you using?)
>>