Original-Via: uk.ac.nsf; Mon, 4 Nov 91 11:35:00 GMT
> Incidentally, I'd suggest that we have separate (c*n) and (n+k) forms of
> pattern ... extending the syntax of patterns to:
>
> pat ::= | int * pat | pat + k
>
> This would allow c*n+k patterns as a special case, but also
X-Comment1: #
X-Comment2: # uk.ac.glasgow.cs has changed to uk.ac.glasgow.dcs #
X-Comment3: # If this address does not work please ask your mail#
X-Comment4: # administrator to update your NRS & mailer tables. #
X-
Original-Via: uk.ac.ox.prg; Mon, 4 Nov 91 13:52:20 GMT
Kent Karlsson asks:
| Which semantics did you use?
The following seemed sensible to me (Your first choice in each case):
For p+k patterns: (as in the report):
case e0 of {p+k -> e; _ -> e'}
= if e0 >= k then let {p = e0-k}
Original-Via: uk.ac.ed.mrcvax; Mon, 4 Nov 91 17:16:03 GMT
Original-Via: talisker.hgu; Mon, 4 Nov 91 17:15:05 GMT
| > "The results of exception conditions (such as overflow or underflow) on
| > the fixed-precision numeric types are undefined; and implementations
| > may choose er
Original-Via: uk.ac.nsf; Mon, 4 Nov 91 17:00:37 GMT
> Kent Karlsson asks:
> | Which semantics did you use?
>
> The following seemed sensible to me (Your first choice in each case):
There was no ranking!
>
> For p+k patterns: (as in the report):
> case e0 of {p+k -> e; _ -> e'
