On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 19:33 -0700, Derick Eddington wrote: > On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 23:42 +0300, Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote: > > [...] > > I cannot > > believe anybody is using the procedural layer and making the > > rtds manually and then wanting to use pattern matching (a > > syntactic facility) to match on those. > > Pattern matching is a syntactic facility, but it's just sugar for doing > the type- and shape-checking and destructuring and binding. We use > pattern matching on all sorts of first-class run-time things.
Sorry, I think I misconstrued what you meant. I think you meant that because the match clauses are syntactic, it doesn't make sense to have a run-time RTD in the clause. But ... > [...] > > If people want to create types at run-time, then I can justify needing > to support RTDs. Of course, the number of fields in the match clause is static and must be the same as the number of fields of the dynamically created type. I don't know how that would work-out, but if people are dynamically creating types, then I suppose, for some uses at least, they do know the number of fields. I could also add "..." to my matcher's record fields pattern. -- : Derick ----------------------------------------------------------------
