On 14/01/2013, at 8:05 PM, Nil Geisweiller wrote:
>>
>> match ?i,?j,?k in iter3 (3,3,3) do
>> println$ i,j,k;
>> done
>> ;
>
> That's cool! Although I dislike the ? in front of the matched
> variables, but I believe I've read in another thread that the parser
> can be improved so that the ? are not required, right?
I hate the ? too.
But a plain identifier can't be used easily because we have
to distinguish match variables from (union) constructors.
In Ocaml this is done with Caml case: constructors start with
Upper case letters and variables lower case. I hate that more!
It doesn't easily generalise to Unicode.
ATS solves the problem as follows: unlike ML and Ocaml
there are no constant constructors. you cannot have this:
union boolean = | true | false
Instead all constructors are like functions:
union boolean =
| true of unit
| faise of unit
;
val x = true ();
match x with
| true () => ..
| false () => ..
This is a significant simplification to the compiler too,
since now all constructors have an argument, a heap
of special cases disappear.
The parser can now tell the difference between variables
and constructors: constructors are applied to something,
variables are not.
So
match x with
| f x =>
where f is a constructor and x is a match variable.
Now I hate
true ()
everywhere. But luckily we *already* have the notation:
#f // means f ()
and #true is much more acceptable! It does mean though that:
enum X = one, two;
var x : X = #one;
i.e. you HAVE to write the # everywhere.
Otherwise you get a closure wrapper:
union X =
| A of ()
| B of int
;
var b = B;
You probably didn't mean that; here b is a function:
var b = fun (j:int) => B j;
[Felix automatically generates wrappers]
This would happen with A as well.
BTW: you will not actually have to write #true.
This is because true is recognised by the parser
and replaced with its value:
case 1 of 2
Of course that will change to
(case 1 of 2) ()
There's another way: ? basically means val. So:
match 1,2,3 with
| val x, val y, val z =>
which is of course the same as ?x,?y,?z except we now write "val"
instead of ?. The advantage of this is that you could also write
| val x, var y, val z => ++y; ...
i.e. now you could have mutable match variables as well.
Then we have
let val x, var y, val z = 1,2,3 in ..
as well. Of course instead we could allow ? as a shorthand and then:
?x = 1;
would be allowed. You can already write
x := 1;
as a shorthand for val x = 1;.
Cool syntax is hard work!
--
john skaller
skal...@users.sourceforge.net
http://felix-lang.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current
with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft
MVPs and experts. SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122412
_______________________________________________
Felix-language mailing list
Felix-language@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/felix-language
