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 RAA27683; Mon, 7 May 2001 17:34:30 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA27536 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Mon, 7 May 2001 17:34:29 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from mail5.microsoft.com (mail5.microsoft.com [131.107.3.121])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with SMTP id f47FYRf09673
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 7 May 2001 17:34:28 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from 157.54.9.104 by mail5.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Mon, 07 May 2001 08:34:26 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
Received: from red-msg-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.74]) by inet-imc-02.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2883);
	 Mon, 7 May 2001 08:33:27 -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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [Caml-list] Record pattern matching
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 08:33:23 -0700
Message-ID: <0C682B70CE37BC4EADED9D375809768A48FDDC@red-msg-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Thread-Topic: Record pattern matching
Thread-Index: AcDW3k9Pv69PhK3ER0COEnGdvNZ39AAK2mNQ
From: "Don Syme" <dsyme@microsoft.com>
To: <caml-list@inria.fr>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 May 2001 15:33:27.0161 (UTC) FILETIME=[0F88CE90:01C0D70B]
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk


In OCaml record patterns may be inexact, i.e. you do not have to specify
all the fields.
 =20
# type x =3D {a:int; b:int};;
type x =3D { a : int; b : int; }

# function {a=3Da} -> a;;
- : x -> int =3D <fun>

# function {b=3Db} -> b;;
- : x -> int =3D <fun>
#

I guess this is considered a feature, but I just wanted to report that
in my current situation I actually find it unhelpful.  I'm in the
process of adding fields to a large number of existing records in a
large existing code base, and would like the type checker to notify me
every time a pattern match is used against one of these record types -
essentially every place where I do such a pattern match I will have some
extra work to do and I'd rather the type checker guided me to these
locations.

If I had encoded the type as a datatype constructor, then the rules are
of course different:

# type x =3D Foo of int * int;;
type x =3D Foo of int * int

# function (Foo (x)) -> x
Characters 10-17:
The constructor Foo expects 2 argument(s),
but is here applied to 1 argument(s)

It seems you're faced with an unfortunate either-or: you lose some
strictness in your type checking (i.e. the type checker ends up catching
less bugs), or you lose the syntactic convenience of records. =20

I don't really have a suggestion as to what to do about this, though I
guess I would prefer if pattern matching against records was strict, or
if an alternative syntax could be used for stricter record patterns.  As
an aside, I would also prefer it if you did not have to use the "{a=3Da;
b=3Db}" syntax but could write "{a; b}".

Thanks,
Don


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