Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane
From: Simon Marlow <simonmar-0li6OtcxBFHby3iVrkZq2A <at> public.gmane.org>
Subject: RE: proposal: introduce lambda-match (explicit match failure andfall-through)
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.haskell.prime
Date: Tuesday 7th November 2006 15:24:40 UTC (over 10 years ago)
Claus Reinke writes:

> may I be so optimistic as to interpret the absolute lack of counter
> arguments over the last week as indication that this proposal is
> acceptable in general?

Since we don't have any experience of using this extension, and it comes
late in the day, it's highly unlikely to become a part of Haskell', simply
because the stated mission of Haskell' is to solidify the tried-and-trusted
extensions.

Cheers,
        Simon

> Thanks to those few who have expressed
> support so far, usually in the form "I've wanted something like
> this for years"! (*)
>
> I have braved the evil trac-wiki formatter again, to convert the email
> proposal into a slightly updated ticket, with attached patch for GHC,
> support libraries and usage examples:
>
>     introduce lambda-match (explicit match failure and fall-through)
>     http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/ticket/114
>
> most notable updates are in the support library (now being a bit
> more helpful in preserving error messages and defining fall_through
> cases; also supports joining of nested matches now), with a few
> added examples demonstrating the changes.
>
> It is a good sign that the syntax patch itself has not changed so far,
> and the support library now supports most of what I had in mind
> for it (took me a while to figure out how to do "nest" ;-). But it
> would be very helpful if more eyes looked over the code, to see
> if the functionality is roughly right (not to mention the
> implementation).
>
> And, of course, syntax patches for other Haskell implementations
> would be great (at least verify whether your favourite implementation
> can handle the support library, please - so far verified for GHC and
> Hugs)!
>
> Thank you,
> Claus
>
> ps. a quick recap for those who don't read webpages:  a
> lambda-match
>
>         |  |  -> 
>
>     is syntactic sugar for
>
>         \  -> case  of
>                        {  |  -> Match $
> return 
>                         ; _ -> Match $ fail "lambda-match failure" }
>
>     which allows us to program explicitly with match failure
>     (represented as Monad.fail/MonadPlus.mzero) and match
>     fall-through (using MonadPlus.mplus), lifting MonadPlus
>     operations over function parameters for ease of use.
>
>     this enables us to write previously practically impossible
>     things (the example file gives some indication of just how
>     unreadable and hence unusable these would be without
>     syntactic sugar), such as a  user-defined case-variant
>     (included in the library):
>
>         caseOf True $ ( |True-> False ) +++ ( |False-> True )
>         --> False
>
>     or monadic match-failure without using do-notation:
>
>         return True >>= (ok $ |False-> return "hi") :: Maybe String
>         --> Nothing
>
>     lambda-matches may be nested, but unlike PMC, that will
>     usually result in nested match monads, unless we use the new
>     "nest" to join the nested monads:
>
>         myAnd = splice (nest (|True->  (|True->True)
>                                    +++ (|False->False))
>                     +++ nest (|False-> fall_through False) )
>
>     we can now also abstract over groups of match alternatives:
>
>         grp :: MonadPlus m => String -> [(String, String)] ->
> Match m String
>         grp = (|  x  locals | Just y <- lookup x locals -> y)
>           +++ (| "X" locals -> "42")
>           +++ matchError "var not found"
>
>     and extend them later, or just use them to build
> different functions:
>
>         -- select only the first match
>         varVal :: String -> [(String, String)] -> String
> varVal  = spliceE grp
>
>         -- a variation, delivering all successful matches
>         varVals :: String -> [(String, String)] -> [] String
>         varVals  = allMatches grp
>
>     leading to uses like these:
>
>         *Main> varVal "X" [("X","hi")]
>         "hi"
>         *Main> varVal "Z" [("X","hi")]
>         "*** Exception: var not found
>         *Main> varVals "X" [("X","hi")]
>         ["hi","42"]
>         *Main> varVals "Z" [("X","hi")]
>         []
>
>     and so on, and so on.. see the proposal attachments for more
> inspirations !-)
>
> (*) it might be useful for the Haskell' committee to clarify the
>     process for acceptance of proposals, similar to what the
>     Haskell library community has done recently:
>
>     http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Library_submissions
>
>     (where the intent of the discussion period is to focus the
>     process, and to ensure progress, ie lack of objections to
>     a clearly implementable/implemented proposal is seen as
> implicit agreement)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
 
CD: 3ms