2 ms·

Is there any other language that does this? For me the second example doesn't look better than the first one.

• breuleux 12y ago
  I haven't seen the feature elsewhere. The second example looks better to me (syntax highlighting helps) and reduces redundancy and indent, but I guess views may vary on this. Good to know!
  • ufo 12y ago
    If your goal is to reduce redundancy than I think a "lambda-case" syntax might be a better fit. As a bonus it also lets you use this feature on anonymous functions! https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghc/latest/docs/html/users_guide/syntax-extns.html#lambda-case https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghc/latest/docs/html/users_gu... http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1604270/what-is-the-different-between-fun-and-function-keywords http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1604270/what-is-the-diffe...
    • breuleux 12y ago
      There already is a "lambda-case" syntax. "fact(match) = ..." is sugar for "fact = match -> ...". If one works, then so does the other. Personally I much prefer the way I do it, because it is more powerful, works in more places, and requires no new syntactic forms.
• adrusi 12y ago
  I haven't seen this specifically, but I have seen other languages move common top level behaviors within functions into parameter lists. Ruby, dart, coffescript allow setting of instance variables from the parameter list: class Example constructor: (@name) -> # do stuff class Example constructor: (name) -> @name = name # do stuff Jonathan Blow's language allows the `using` keyword in parameter list, which desugars in much the same way. I'm personally not a big fan of using this technique for pattern matching, but its better than requiring explicit match blocks everywhere (like Scala and rust).