On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:24:09PM -0400, David Nolen wrote: > I'm not following. Getting accurate information about what failed to match > needs to be integrated. Given that match makes no restrictions on types > there's not much we can do except communicate where we were when the match > failed via an exception.
Sorry, I was unclear. I was trying to say that having two versions, match-debug that throws exceptions, and match-normal that returns nil, is redundant - default behavior is easily set with an :else clause. Changing the behavior for something marked '-debug' seems like a bad idea as well. I personally think throwing exceptions is the Right Thing. When adding clauses incrementally, I'd rather get a direct error message for unexpected values. Exhaustive clauses are a good thing, and :else nil is a simple idiom for the 'other behavior'. > Ambrose had some arguments for keeping match and match-1 separate. At the > moment I don't see any real issues except that overloading match to handle > two different cases seems like we're making things slightly more complex. (Where are these arguments? I thought I remember a wiki with design notes, but can't seem to find it). I don't see how it's two different cases. Having match take a vector of expressions with 'pattern rows' seems like an unnecessarily visible optimization. Steve -- 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
