caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>
To: pixel@mandrakesoft.com (Pixel)
Cc: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] "Or" patterns when both matchings
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:37:58 +0100 (MET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200110291037.LAA0000013411@beaune.inria.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ly3d44yqmt.fsf@leia.mandrakesoft.com> from "Pixel" at oct 28, 2001 12:02:02

> 
> 
> 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


  reply	other threads:[~2001-10-29 10:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-10-28 11:02 Pixel
2001-10-29 10:37 ` Luc Maranget [this message]
2001-10-30 18:22 Manuel Fahndrich
2001-10-31  9:42 ` 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=200110291037.LAA0000013411@beaune.inria.fr \
    --to=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
    --cc=caml-list@pauillac.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).