No subject

generated from a grammar 'functor' that receives a lattice (let's say
one for now), computes some grammatical clauses -- and may add some 
primitive operations for working on the lattice, which is trivial -- 
and returns that grammar. 

The reduction relation itself does not depend on the generated grammar 
other than the notion of value you need for beta-v. 

So, I think that you could use _Racket_'s syntax system to compute 
the grammar. This is quite different from extending a base grammar 
with new features or value clauses but as I said at the beginning, 
it is closer to the way you describe lambdaLVar. 

;; --- 

On an unrelated note, you may wish to experiment with lambdaLVar 
as a #lang so that you can write programs. Since you seem to be 
designing a PL, I consider the practical evaluation as at least 
as important as a reduction semantics. Just a thought. [My gain for
Racket would be that someone who does parallel 'stuff' uses our 
parallel features.] 

-- Matthias






On Apr 3, 2013, at 8:02 PM, Lindsey Kuper <lkuper at cs.indiana.edu> wrote:

> I have a rather involved Redex question that I was originally going to
> send to this list, but it got long enough that it was crying out for
> hyperlinks and code formatting.  So, here it is on Stack Overflow:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15800167/plt-redex-parameterizing-a-language-definition
> 
> Nevertheless, I suspect that if there's anyone who can help, they're
> on this list, so I'd appreciate any responses, whether here or there.
> Thanks!
> 
> Lindsey
> ____________________
>  Racket Users list:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/users