I think the problem is slightly different than you think. The reason the
compiler complains about the redundant pattern is that "x" already matches
everything. There are no more cases for "_" to handle.
This compiles with no problem:
let
x = 1
in
case something of
x -> ...
I expect that you are actually looking to do something like this:
let
x = 1
in
case something of
Just x -> ...
Nothing -> ...
On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 6:05:10 AM UTC-5, Michał Podwórny wrote:
>
> Thanks for clearing things out!
>
> W dniu niedziela, 4 grudnia 2016 02:40:41 UTC+1 użytkownik Michał Podwórny
> napisał:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Consider this:
>> let
>> x = 1
>> in
>> case something of
>> x -> (...)
>> _ -> (...)
>>
>> The compiler will complain that "The following pattern is redundant",
>> pointing to the wildcard. I assume that Elm ignores the fact that "x" is
>> already bound, re-binds it in the first case match and that indeed makes
>> the wildcard redundant. I know how I would do this in Elixir: I'd put "^"
>> before "x" to explicitly say not to re-bind the x variable. Is there
>> something like this in Elm?
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm
Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
