On Sun, Aug 01, 2021 at 07:42:07PM +0400, Abdulla Al Kathiri wrote:
While at it, why don’t we pattern match function parameters like Haskel. Very elegant way for function overload.
I don't think your example is very elegant:
case def func(int(x), [float(y), *_], int(z)) if z != 0 -> int: return int((x + y) / z)
case def func(int(x), [float(y), *_], int(z)): -> int: return 0
case def func(_): raise
That's a clear violation of DRY. The indentation is odd. And where does the docstring go? What will `func.__annotations__` be? It is especially awkward if you have a realistic function body rather than a single line statement, and the syntax is just begging to be mis-written as: case def func(...): body case def func(...): body def func(...): body especially if the bodies are realistically large.
No need to precede it with the “match” statement because we are pattern matching function parameters here in those cases. Also, annotating the parameters will be redundant.
What is so special about the case where you are matching on *exactly* the parameters as written? That may be common, but I don't think that it is so common that we need special syntax for it. A more general function would pattern match on only some of the parameters, with the other parameters used elsewhere in the function. Of course we can always just match the other parameters with the wild-card, but that's not very elegent. It also promotes function annotations from an optional type hint with no runtime semantics (other than setting `__annotations__`) to syntactic sugar for runtime function multiple dispatch. I think that would be far better written as a single function with the case inside the body. # I may have the syntax of the case statement wrong... def func(x, alist, z): # Type-hints remain optional. """Docstring goes here""" case (x, alist, z): match (int(x), [float(y), _], 0): return 0 match (int(x), [float(y), _], int(z)): return int((x+y)/z) match _: raise SomeException -- Steve