That'd be bad news for Lint...
On Saturday, September 13, 2014 3:22:04 PM UTC+7, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > We've actually discussed changing our expression representation to use > types instead of the more lisp-like symbols for distinguishing expression > types. That would allow dispatch on expression types and be more compact. > It would, however, break almost all macros that do any kind of expression > inspection. > > On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Gray Calhoun <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:50:44 AM UTC-5, Steven G. Johnson >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 12:20:59 PM UTC-4, Gray Calhoun wrote: >>>> >>>> Are there better ways to do this in general? >>>> >>> >>> For this kind of expression-matching code, you may find the Match.jl >>> package handy (https://github.com/kmsquire/Match.jl), to get ML- or >>> Scala-like symbolic pattern-matching. >>> >> >> Thanks, that's pretty cool. For simple cases like I'm using, do you know >> if there are advantages (or disadvantages) to using Match.jl, or should I >> just view it as a nicer syntax? (Obviously, when things get more >> complicated Match.jl looks very appealing). >> > >
