From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id UAA10023; Thu, 10 May 2001 20:43:54 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA10019 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Thu, 10 May 2001 20:43:53 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from mail2.microsoft.com (mail2.microsoft.com [131.107.3.124])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with SMTP id f4AIhq913010
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Thu, 10 May 2001 20:43:52 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from 157.54.7.67 by mail2.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 10 May 2001 11:43:51 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
Received: from red-msg-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.74]) by inet-imc-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2883);
	 Thu, 10 May 2001 11:43:31 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4688.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Record pattern matching
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 11:43:30 -0700
Message-ID: <0C682B70CE37BC4EADED9D375809768A02DB1FEF@red-msg-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Thread-Topic: [Caml-list] Record pattern matching
Thread-Index: AcDXJN62VSjaIfGfTKWCOqpJXumsbACW37GA
From: "Don Syme" <dsyme@microsoft.com>
To: "John Max Skaller" <skaller@ozemail.com.au>
Cc: <caml-list@inria.fr>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 May 2001 18:43:31.0181 (UTC) FILETIME=[1C1969D0:01C0D981]
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

> > I guess this is considered a feature, but I just wanted to report
that
> > in my current situation I actually find it unhelpful.=20
>=20
> 	You'd rather be forced to code something like:
>=20
> 	function { a=3Da; b=3D_ } -> a;;
>=20
> where all the fields have to be named, but some of them can=20
> be specified as ignored?

I guess the point is that I don't use record pattern matching much, and
where I do I don't want partial matches.  Or at least I have a cases
where enforcing full matching would catch more bugs.  For example, if
I'm writing marshalling code for the record by hand I want the type
system to tell me if I have forgotten to marshal a field.

> There is a sense in which
>=20
> 	record.a
>=20
> is just a shorthand for
>=20
> 	match record with { a=3Dvalue } -> value
>=20
> which means that you might argue that the notation=20
>=20
> 	record.a
>=20
> should be completed by naming every field too :-)

You could argue that, but I wouldn't....

Don
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr