Re: [Scheme-reports] match.scm

[Peter Kourzanov <peter.kourzanov@x>]

Alex,

> > * missing struct/records support? I think we should specify it,
> > and let implementations decide on its efficient representation
> 
> These are actually commented out in the source.  The upstream
> chibi-scheme version has support for matching SRFI-99 records.

Should I look here?

http://code.google.com/p/chibi-scheme/source/browse/lib/chibi/match/match.scm?r=e29de01c617da072a938de874d2272558ebe2746

> 
> > * at some point, it does vector->list for matching inside
> > quasiquote.  Isn't it a bit inefficient?
> 
> Vectors in general are rare to match against - a lot of matching
> libraries use that trick for matching even outside of quasiquote.

Not in numeric/linear algebra code. But I agree, its a neat trick,
which I have also used at some point to get pattern matching to
work using pure R5RS syntax-rules matcher ;-) But I have since
abandoned this idea as matching for particular values at large (but 
bounded offsets) inside vectors is then very inefficient.


> It's easy enough to optimize if you feel the extra code is worth
> it.

Agreed.

> 
> > * are nested ellipses supported? Looks like they are quite
> > useful...
> 
> Please read the comment in the source regarding this - they are
> intentionally disabled.

Couldn't find it in the sources... Any hints?

> 
> Nested tree patterns aren't disabled, though,
> 
> > * (? predicate) matching is a bit ugly when you use (? number?).
> > Reminds me of Bigloo/Queinnec's matcher
> 
> Alternate syntax suggestions are welcome.

Actually, I would like to propose
________________________________________________________________________

(predicate? : accessor1 = pattern : accessor2 = pattern ...)
________________________________________________________________________

where accessorN can be something like a lambda abstraction
(lambda (x) x) or (fun args ...) returning a singular 
function expecting matched data. Predicate? can be any 
singular function returning boolean.

So, the dispatch is this case is better on the second form (:),
rather than the first (?)...

> 
> > * where are guards?
> 
> You can combine predicates and/or use the failure continuation.

Isn't this too verbose? Don't we want to abbreviate (this very common
case) in a manner already pretty much accepted by ML, Haskell, Scala
and R6RS compile-time pattern-matcher?

> 
> > * matching numbers: we need to use (=) to match them, not equal?
> > (or eqv? and eq?)
> 
> Do we? :)
> 

Typing. A good example: 42+0.0 should match both 42.0 and 42. 

And then lets have n+k patterns;-)

Pjotr Kourzanov


_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports