From: "Manuel Fahndrich" <maf@microsoft.com>
To: "Luc Maranget" <luc.maranget@inria.fr>, "Pixel" <pixel@mandrakesoft.com>
Cc: <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] "Or" patterns when both matchings
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:22:28 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BEC4845020047048A9A8616BCFFCA9040238AE57@red-msg-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> (raw)
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
next reply other threads:[~2001-10-30 18:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-10-30 18:22 Manuel Fahndrich [this message]
2001-10-31 9:42 ` Luc Maranget
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-10-28 11:02 Pixel
2001-10-29 10:37 ` Luc Maranget
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=BEC4845020047048A9A8616BCFFCA9040238AE57@red-msg-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com \
--to=maf@microsoft.com \
--cc=caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr \
--cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
--cc=pixel@mandrakesoft.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox