Re: for-must-match

On 2011-10-22 15:00, Kevin Reid wrote:
[...]
> As to your previous for-must-match pragma: I doubt its
> appropriateness for the language. However, it is entirely appropriate
> to add it as a pragma as an *experiment* -- that's why we have
> pragmas. You may commit for-must-match, provided that the
> documentation and *EVERY* code addition which supports it is marked
> as experimental and part of for-must-match.

I've now committed a cut-down version of this patch. When for-must-match 
is enabled, all for patterns must match or an exception is thrown (i.e. 
there is no new "for match" syntax).

I just changed the two places in my code that relied on it to use an 
explicit "if". They were in the same bit of code... I suspect I wrote 
that just after learning about the syntax to try it out.

I'm not sure what further documentation is needed. Aren't all the syntax 
pragmas experimental?

By the way: as an experiment (not committed) I changed the ENodeBuilder 
code to require patterns to match always (regardless of whether 
for-must-match was enabled) for all syntax versions. With the above two 
fixes to my code, all tests pass and everything seems to be working 
(including updoc, rune, and all of the standard library that gets used 
by my code).


-- 
Dr Thomas Leonard
IT Innovation Centre
Gamma House, Enterprise Road,
Southampton SO16 7NS, UK


tel: +44 23 8059 8866

mailto:tal-v5nx5w6akNyLE8xUarVfuPLx9OUvmyODWmv/[email protected]
http://www.it-innovation.soton.ac.uk/