The mangling has to be stable across compilations with respect to
any source- and binary-compatible changes to the pattern
declaration. One mangling that works quite well is to use the
"symbolic-freedom encoding" of the erasure of the pattern
descriptor. Because the erasur
1/ conceptually there is a mismatch, the syntax introduce names for
the bindings, but they have no names at that point, bindings only have
names AFTER the pattern matching succeed.
I think you have missed the point here. The names serve the
implementation of the pattern, not the interface
I am disappointed that you took this as an invitation to digress into
syntax here, when it should have been blindingly obvious that this was
not the time for a syntax discussion. (And when there is a syntax
discussion, which this isn't, we need to cover all the different forms
of declared patt
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "amber-spec-experts"
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 11:01:18 PM
> Subject: Declared patterns -- translation and reflection
> Time to take a peek ahead at _declared patterns_. Declared patterns come in
> three varieties -- deconstruction patterns, static patterns, and
> From: "Brian Goetz"
> To: "amber-spec-experts"
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 11:01:18 PM
> Subject: Declared patterns -- translation and reflection
> Time to take a peek ahead at _declared patterns_. Declared patterns come in
> three varieties -- deconstruction patterns, static patterns, and
Time to take a peek ahead at _declared patterns_. Declared patterns
come in three varieties -- deconstruction patterns, static patterns, and
instance patterns (corresponding to constructors, static methods, and
instance methods.) I'm going to start with deconstruction patterns, but
the basic
