Just to clarify, I don't think this should replace the existing struct form, but I think it is useful and wanted enough to warrant being included in scheme/match
Jay On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:55 AM, John Clements <cleme...@brinckerhoff.org> wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2009, at 8:12 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Jay McCarthy <jay.mccar...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> The structure patterns in scheme/match have always bugged me that they >>> didn't let you put the fields in any order and you had to put in _ for >>> the fields you didn't care about. > > IIUC, the proposal would allow you to leave out fields without a warning. > This strikes me as potentially dangerous, especially if this stuff is used > in the teaching languages. I actually recall some discussion of this on the > OCaml list (OCaml behaves in this way, IIUC), and some were suggesting that > a slightly different form be required for an incomplete match. > > John > > -- Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://teammccarthy.org/jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
