> De: "Brian Goetz" <brian.go...@oracle.com> > À: "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> > Cc: "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Vendredi 15 Janvier 2021 19:45:21 > Objet: Re: New pattern matching doc
> Back in August ( [ > https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/2020-August/002342.html > | > https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/2020-August/002342.html > ] ), I posted something about how we should engage on this list, because we > fell into one of the classic traps: >> So, what happened is what always happens on mailing lists -- I put out a >> multi-page writeup reflecting hundreds of hours of research and incorporating >> years of discussion, and 99% of the discussion was a too-loud, back-and-forth >> thread on a relatively uninteresting corner case on the subject of whatever >> happened to be the first strongly-stated opinion. > And that this common phenomena has a bad side-effect I think you have to think a little bit like us, at least like me, we get a long document, that touch multiple parts of the future spec and i'm still looking for how the different pieces fit together. So how do i know if something is a corner case or not ? [...] > We're now deep in a sub-thread on translation (which I even asked we not talk > about now), which isn't really even about translation, but really seems to be > about lobbying for a preferred form of expression in the user model: >> pattern method decompose itself nicely to tuples + two new keywords match and >> no-match. > So please (everyone, not just Remi): can we just start again here? This > document > reflects a deep statement about the role of pattern matching in the language. > There will be ample time to discuss how it is surfaced, but until we have a > shared understanding of the model and where we're going, I don't think it > makes > sense to talk about how it is expressed or implemented. (Trust me, I've > thought > about these things too.) There's a method to my madness here; this is a big > topic, and I want to nail down where we're going before we talk about how we > get there. Shared understanding first. > If you think this direction is all wrong and this direction is complete > garbage, > it's OK to say that (constructively), but otherwise, please, we're off the > trail, and I would like to get back on -- and get ALL of us on together. Again, at least in my case, the problem is not if this direction is garbage or not but that i don't fully understand the document you sent to us. Questions like what is the relationship between a deconstruction pattern and a static pattern ? Is there several form of static patterns ? What a guard is ? etc. All these questions are important to understand the document you have sent. regards, Rémi
