3 ms·
Erlang doesn't check for exhaustiveness either, and pattern matching is awesome :) Without exhaustiveness it might not be feasible for a statically types PL t
by dmitriid 7y ago
Erlang doesn't check for exhaustiveness either, and pattern matching is awesome :)
Without exhaustiveness it might not be feasible for a statically types PL though, but I don't know nearly enough to even speculate on that.
- platz 7y agoI'm not implying exhaustiveness is always necessary, I'm saying if you want feedback from the compiler to support a type-driven extend-refactor workflow that is commensurate with inheritance-based typechecking, as is one of the major arguments for inheritance and subclassing to work they way it does in a static language, then you need exhaustivess to deliver the guarantees and maintainability experience if pattern matching is to replace inheritance+sublassing. Dynlangs here do not apply.