[racket] Transitively extend redex metafunctions

I would prefer not to document these as I can't promise they won't change.

Also it seems better to just use a big language than use these.

Is there some other usecase you have in mind?

Robby

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Robby Findler
> <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Also, metafunctions (and everything else) expand into functions that
>> accept a language (as a value at runtime) to create extensions. So the
>> main work is just sorting out how the module system should work (I
>> think it can be first-order for example) and then setting up the
>> expansion to pass the languages around at right points.
>
> In the interim, would it make sense to expose these functions (perhaps
> via a reflective `metafunction->value` operation) so that people could
> do this wiring themselves if neccessary?
>
> Sam