Sounds like a lot of detail oriented improvements. Regardless, you can be sure I'll be using it when its done (or even if its not done yet, I'd be happy to help with real world testing :) )
-Brent On May 13, 3:57 pm, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Brent Millare <brent.mill...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > However, you state here that you will build something more powerful > > than predicate dispatch. From the references you cited, I don't > > understand how you propose to accomplish this. The first paper says > > predicate dispatch is more generalized than pattern matching. > > > Best, > > Brent > > The predicate dispatch paper hardwires some details. For example it's not > clear to me how they deal with: > > (match n > ([x] :guard [(number? x)] > ...) > ([0] ...)) > > But this is a common problem that nothing to do with numbers. Mostly likely > their predicate dispatch is hardwired to classes and numbers as I far can > tell. By allowing the user to define relationships between predicates we > eliminate the hardwiring and are able handle any kind of match like say: > > (match n > ([x] :guard [(number? x)] > ...) > ([x] :guard [(even? x)]) > > The even? test must come first. The predicate dispatch paper does not show > how to deal with this case at all. > > David -- 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
