Re: [Caml-list] partial match in let

["Robert W." <slrn_robert@yahoo.de>]

Christophe Raffalli schrieb:

>
> Wish: I had like a way to avoid the partial match warning in code like
>
> let [x;y] = f (x) in foo
>
> Because if foo is long writing
>
> match f(x) with [x;y] -> foo | _ -> assert false
>

Wouldn't this be semantically equivalent to the constant function 
returning foo?
What I mean, instead of explicitly adding the wild card pattern, you can 
can substitute another one without. This would lead to an exhaustive 
pattern matching as well.

> is really ennoying, especially if you have a long sequence of let.
>
> I find usefull the partial match warning for match and function but 
> not for let (if you write a let, I think you are aware that your 
> matching will be partial for any data type with more than one 
> constructor, you do not need a warning)
>

I'm sure, there are formal problems with partial matching leading to 
serious serious headaches, but I'll need some time to think about.

-- 

	Robert...