Browse thread
RE: [Caml-list] "Or" patterns when both matchings
- Manuel Fahndrich
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Manuel Fahndrich <maf@m...> |
| Subject: | RE: [Caml-list] "Or" patterns when both matchings |
Hmm, I must side with Pixel here. Ease of compilation is rarely a good
design principle for a programming language. The use of or patterns
allows one to factor right hand sides as in the example shown below:
| Foo(a)
| a -> <complicated expression involving a>
If Or-patterns do not follow the first-to-last matching order, then
producing correct code and reading it becomes more difficult. I wasn't
aware of the Or-compilation strategy and I'm sure I made this mistake in
the past as well.
-Maf
-----Original Message-----
From: Luc Maranget [mailto:luc.maranget@inria.fr]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 2:38 AM
To: Pixel
Cc: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] "Or" patterns when both matchings
>
>
> from the documentation:
> The pattern pattern1 | pattern2 represents the logical ``or'' of the
two
> patterns pattern1 and pattern2. [...] If both matchings succeed, it
is
> undefined which set of bindings is selected.
>
> is there a reason for not using the classical pattern matching rule,
to make
> the ordering matters? (i've been nastily beat by this :-/)
>
> eg:
>
>
> type foo = Bar | Foo of foo
>
> let f1 = function
> | Foo(a)
> | a -> a
>
> let f2 = function
> | Foo(a) -> a
> | a -> a
>
> let e1 = f1 (Foo Bar) (*=> Foo Bar *)
> let e2 = f2 (Foo Bar) (*=> Bar *)
>
>
> thanks
> --
> Pixel
Yes there are two reasons
1. ease of compilation.
As you have experienced yourself. In case one of the patterns in
the or-pattern is a variable, then the or-pattern is reduced to a
variable. Otherwise, compilation would be a bit more complicated.
2. Ideology. I consider that priority in or-patterns is something
obscure, and would discourage relying on it.
However the current (unspecified) semantics makes the idea
of a ``partially useless'' matching clause a bit random, and this
semantics may become more precise in the future.
Cheers,
--Luc
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ:
http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives:
http://caml.inria.fr
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr