[racket] unstable/match

10 minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> I don't plan to change it, but I do plan to move it to `racket/match'.

Instead of a new keyword, why not use `equal?'?  You can then define
the others instead of the extra `comparator'.  Alternatively, I think
that `==' is a bad name, which looks confusing in useful cases like

  (== 3 =)
  (== 10 <)

and I think that the order of compared arguments should change, so
the last one matches things that are smaller than 10, and things like
`memq' can be used too.  Something like

  (?? 3 =)
  (?? 10 <)
  (?? memq '(1 2 3))

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!