From: Manuel Fahndrich <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: stream pattern [< pat=exp >] and extensions to ordinary pattern m
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 15:28:29 -0700
I just discovered the stream parser pattern [< pat = exp >] and I was
wondering why this kind of pattern is not allowed in regular patterns? It is
a very useful construct. For example:
Suppose I have some type ast for abstract syntax
type ast =
Constant of constant
| Binary of oper * ast * ast
where the type "constant" is not a datatype. There is however a function
refine : constant -> con
type con = String of string
| Int of int
In order to use pattern matching to detect a string constant, I have to use
the following two auxiliary functions (which can be defined with what is
isString : constant -> bool
getString : constant -> string
Then I can write:
match a with
Constant c when isString c -> ... getString c ...
However, this is really not what I want, since I essentially test twice if c
is a string (i.e. getString needs an error case), and furthermore, my
operation 'refine' from above may be expensive.
Now, in a paper ICFP'97 "Statically Checkable Pattern Abstraction", me and a
colleague have explored more expressive patterns in the context of ML. It
seems to me that the stream patterns in OCAML would allow me to do what we
described in this paper, except for the fact that they can only appear in
Suppose I could write pat = exp in the regular pattern language, with the
semantics that the value being matched is first passed to the function exp,
and the result is matched against pat:
Then I can write the above code as follows: I write a different auxilary
function to test whether a constant is a string that returns the string in
case it is one.
let isString2 c =
match refine c with
String s -> Some s
| _ -> None
Then my match becomes:
match a with
Constant (Some s = isString2) -> .... s ....
which is exactly what I want. I believe that with such an extension to
OCAML, the pattern language we explored in the ICFP paper could be expressed
completely (and more). In our paper, we used syntax that swaps the
arguments and returns to pattern abstractions, so we could write the above
match a with
Constant (isString2(s)) -> ... s ...
Note that in this case the success/failure of the pattern is implicit,
whereas in the above case I used an option to encode it. Any pattern
abstraction could be encoded in this form, where the pattern bindings become
the argument to Some.
... Just a random thought, but it would be neat.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2000 - 11:58:22 MET