[erlang-questions] : eep: multiple patterns

[Richard A. O'Keefe]

On 15 May 2008, at 9:00 pm, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
>> I don't like vague suggestions that
>> "It is rather common to check the value of an expression with a
>>     case expression and do the same actions in some of the cases."
>> I want to see *actual cases*.
>
> But on this one I have experienced so many *actual cases*
> myself to accept it as an inconveniance. A solution
> to the multiple patterns to one branch problem would
> be convenient, indeed.

I may have expressed myself badly.  You may have noticed that my
message criticised the ~= part, but did not criticise the idea or
even the method of allowing multiple patterns.  I did not say that
no actual cases EXIST, only that I would like to SEE them.
Actual cases can be enormously helpful, not only in evaluating
the utility of a proposal, but in suggesting alternatives.

For example, had there been some real cases shown, I could have
responded by showing how abstract patterns handle them, and we
could then have debated whether *anonymous* multiple patterns are
a good idea.
>>

>> Oh, and did I point out that abstract patterns can solve the
>> "multiple patterns" problem neatly and clearly?

THIS Richard DOES want to discuss evidence!

--
"I don't want to discuss evidence." -- Richard Dawkins, in an
interview with Rupert Sheldrake.  (Fortean times 232, p55.)