On 12/23/13 4:12 AM, Gábor Lehel wrote:
I don't like either that (a) the possible failure is silent, and refutable lets look the same as irrefutable ones, nor (b) baking fail!() into the semantics. Haskell has these also and I think it's a wart. The proposed syntax solves both issues.
For what it's worth, Rust's pattern matching is pretty heavily based on OCaml's and the OCaml compiler complains with a warning if you use a refutable pattern in `let`.
Patrick _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
