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 LAA23504; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:38:05 +0100 (MET)
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 LAA23391 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:38:04 +0100 (MET)
Received: from beaune.inria.fr (beaune.inria.fr [128.93.8.3])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f9TAc4n15955
	for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:38:04 +0100 (MET)
Received: by beaune.inria.fr (8.8.8/1.1.22.3/14Sep99-0328PM)
	id LAA0000013411; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:37:58 +0100 (MET)
From: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>
Message-Id: <200110291037.LAA0000013411@beaune.inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] "Or" patterns when both matchings
To: pixel@mandrakesoft.com (Pixel)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:37:58 +0100 (MET)
Cc: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
In-Reply-To: <ly3d44yqmt.fsf@leia.mandrakesoft.com> from "Pixel" at oct 28, 2001 12:02:02 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

> 
> 
> 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