Syntax & Records (was: Re: COPL, the Tandem, PLITS and JAVA (WAS Re: Eppur si sugat))
Tue Jun 3 08:31:42 CEST 2003
> But then you might well ask, "Why can't I pattern match on property
> lists etc"? Then you may ask "Why aren't patterns a first-class type?"
> Then you may ask "Isn't this an awful lot of work to slightly improve a
> language which is already very nice?" :)
Hmm, I guess I live some 10 years in the future and I am frustrated by how
"old" everything is :-) More seriously, settling in a "this is very nice,
why try to improve it?" attitude isn't good, so I try to stay alert.
I was actually thinking about how to allow pattern matching for user-defined
types, and it may be feasible with "only" parse transforms. I dropped it
because I didn't think anyone would be interested (as you say, the language
is already very nice).
More information about the erlang-questions