From: Yaron Minsky <yminsky@gmail.com>
To: Pal-Kristian Engstad <pal_engstad@naughtydog.com>
Cc: Yoann Padioleau <padator@wanadoo.fr>,
"caml-list@inria.fr" <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] pattern matching and records vs tuples
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:37:49 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <891bd3390904141937l571e34bfgbc6cd69378cca61a@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49E53C8A.1090601@naughtydog.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 832 bytes --]
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Pal-Kristian Engstad <
pal_engstad@naughtydog.com> wrote:
> Honestly, I'd prefer to have to annotate non-exhaustive records:
>
> let { foo = foo; bar = bar } = x
>
> should only match { foo; bar }, but
>
> let { foo = foo; bar = bar; .. } = x,
>
> can match records with more labels.
>
You're right, that seems way better. The syntax is really much clearer, and
I like exhaustiveness as the default. The only problem is that it is
inconsistent with the current way the compiler behaves. But if you add the
exhaustiveness checking only as a flag, and that flag is turned off by the
"...", then you're totally set. That's very consistent with other checks in
the compiler, such as checks for unused variables.
I think this is a great suggestion. I'm curious what Xavier thinks...
y
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1256 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-15 2:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-14 14:12 Yoann Padioleau
2009-04-14 16:00 ` [Caml-list] " Christophe TROESTLER
2009-04-14 16:40 ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-04-14 16:58 ` Yoann Padioleau
2009-04-14 20:01 ` Christophe Raffalli
2009-04-15 0:44 ` Yaron Minsky
2009-04-15 1:46 ` Pal-Kristian Engstad
2009-04-15 2:37 ` Yaron Minsky [this message]
2009-04-15 2:40 ` Ashish Agarwal
2009-04-16 16:05 ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-04-16 16:59 ` David Allsopp
2009-04-17 0:26 ` Jacques Garrigue
2009-04-17 21:12 ` Goswin von Brederlow
2009-04-15 7:41 ` blue storm
2009-04-15 9:30 ` Martin Jambon
2009-04-15 11:01 ` Yaron Minsky
2009-04-15 12:04 ` Martin Jambon
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=891bd3390904141937l571e34bfgbc6cd69378cca61a@mail.gmail.com \
--to=yminsky@gmail.com \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=padator@wanadoo.fr \
--cc=pal_engstad@naughtydog.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).