> On Mar 10, 2021, at 12:04 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.go...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> You nail the guard to a pattern, which is equivalent until we have nested
>> patterns (and "or"/"and" patterns).
>
> We have nested patterns already in the JEPs on the table. Where's the
> problem?
>
>> I see a lot of advantages of using && to link a guard to a pattern,
>> - the symbol is heavy so there is a clear visual separation
>> - without any supplementary parenthesis, && after the type pattern in an
>> instanceofis the && between expression, it's almost like you can not have a
>> guard with an instanceof, in practice, few instanceof will have a guard.
>
> I agree few instanceof will have a guard, but users are still free to express
> it that way if they like, and there's nothing wrong with that.
>
>> I still think that using a guard inside a nested pattern is ugly but it can
>> be just that, ugly. Someone may want a short-circuit in a deeply nested
>> patterns .
>
> Yes. This is not unlike other compositions; for any compositional tool, you
> can overuse it. (You can arbitrarily compose boolean expressions (or
> arbitrarily chain method invocations), but sometimes this is taking it too
> far.)
>
>> As i said to Gavin, i'm not at ease with using the symbol '&' in between
>> patterns.
>
> I think that this is mostly a "who moved my cheese" reaction; you're used to
> thinking that & is just for bitwise operations. But, that's not actually
> true; we already use & and | on types -- intersection type casts, additional
> generic type bounds, multi-catch. This appeals to a notion that & and | are
> boolean-like combinators on types (even if not exposed in all places they
> might make sense), but this is a different kind of combination than on
> integers. And yet a different kind of combination on patterns. (In an
> alternate universe, we might have different symbols for adding ints vs floats
> vs string concatenation, but + works well enough that overloading the symbols
> is OK -- because using + in this way appeals to the underlying algebraic
> monoid structure these types share.)
We all know that `+` is not your best poster child for this argument.
(“foo” + 1) + 2 produces “foo12”
“foo” + (1 + 2) produces “foo3”
which is not my idea of good monoid behavior. But there is a lot of wiggle
room in your use of the word “appeals”. :-)
> The reason that & and | make sense on patterns, and on types, is that, like
> the more familiar versions on bits, they describe a _boolean algebra_.
> Boolean algebras have familiar properties such as De Morgan's Laws. These
> work for types (when interpreted as value sets) as well as bits, and they
> work for patterns too.
>
> I think where you're getting hung up is that when patterns produce bindings,
> and other patterns consume those bindings, we have a dataflow dependence
> which would appear to undermine certain other expected properties of a
> boolean algebra, such as commutativity. But, if we view those dataflow
> dependencies as a separate constraint -- as we *already do* for ints (e.g.,
> `(x=3)&(x|4)`, is invalid when `x` is an DU int, but valid when `x` is DA),
> this seeming contradiction vanishes, and is seen to be merely a post-hoc
> well-formedness constraint. If the WF constraint is satisfied, the expected
> properties of boolean algebras (associativity, commutativity, absorption,
> etc) are satisfied too.
And yet, even if we stipulate all that, it is still the case that in
expressions, Java uses `&&` to indicate short-circuiting and `&` to indicate no
reliance on short-circuiting, and this is long-standing, familiar use. For the
other applications cited (intersection type casts, additional generic type
bounds, multi-catch) this distinction does not matter. But in principle it
does matter for patterns, because while patterns arguably do not involve
_evaluation_, they most certainly involve _execution_ of possibly user-written
code. If side effects can occur, the distinction arguably matters, and this is
worth recognizing as we debate the design.
Nevertheless, as I just wrote in an earlier email, I think that the desire to
maintain this distinction should be outweighed by other considerations (visual
analogy to type intersection, for which `&` is used but not `&&`; need for
distinct symbols for pattern conjunction action and guard attachment in order
to solve parsing problems; desire not to invent an arbitrary new symbol such as
`&:` or `&&&`).
