Hi Meikel, hi all, thanks for the explanation, I think I got it now. I suppose something in the sentence I quoted led me to think that pattern matching was "less" in a way than destructuring, whereas in fact it seems to be the opposite - pattern matching seems to presuppose destructuring if I'm correct now.
Still then (regarding "The way that Rich elected to de-couple destructuring bind from pattern matching was brilliant.") , it is unclear to me why it was such a good idea not to include pattern matching, or, to somehow keep them separate... Ciao, Sigrid On 21 Aug., 21:16, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote: > Hi, > > Am 21.08.2009 um 20:02 schrieb Sigrid: > > > Could someone point me to what the difference is? I know pattern > > matching e.g. from the PLT scheme implementation, and there the > > pattern matching also provides the binding and destructuring I > > think...? > > The difference is, that in pattern matching you can also specify > values on the left side. For example in OCaml: > > type foo = [ Foo of int ]; > > value frobnicate x = > match x with > [ Foo 5 -> do_something () > | Foo 7 -> do_something_else () > | Foo x -> do_more x ]; > > (Please bear with me if I don't remember all the details of the syntax.) > > While this is not possible in Clojure: > > (let [[x 5 y] [1 2 3]] > ...) > > The five on the left hand side is not allowed. > > Hope this helps. > > Sincerely > Meikel > > smime.p7s > 2KAnzeigenHerunterladen --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
