[erlang-questions] pattern match test operator

Andras Georgy Bekes bekesa@REDACTED
Fri Nov 16 21:07:05 CET 2007


I'm missing a pattern match test operator from Erlang. What I mean?
I think there should be a built-in operator, which requires a pattern on 
the left-side and a value on the right side, and returns true or false, 
depending on the success of the match.

The semantics of the operator could be the same as this macro:

       case Value of
	    Pattern ->
	    _ ->

I think this is very useful in some situations, for example,
this expression:

case Value1 of
    PATTERN1 ->
	case Value2 of
	    PATTERN2 ->
	    _ ->

could be rewritten as

case ?MATCH(PATTERN1,Value1) andalso ?MATCH(PATTERN2,Value2) of
   true ->
   _ ->

Using an 'if' instead of 'case' would be better, but it won't work 
because the 'case' expression -- the result of ?MATCH/2 -- is not 
guard-expression :-(
In this case you can use the 'case' construct, but if you want to have a 
function like

fun(Arg) when ?MATCH(PATTERN1,Arg) or ?MATCH(PATTERN2,Arg) ->

you can't do anything.
So having a built-in operator (that can be used in guards) would be 
useful, I think. Such built-in stuff could probably be more efficient 
than the above macro.

Of course, this operator would never bind variables (just like the macro 
above). Maybe it should not accept patterns containing variables other 
than _ .

Besides this, there should be a similar built-in function-like construct 
that's argument is a pattern and returns a function that returns true 
if its argument matches its pattern, false otherwise.

This can be achieved by the following macro:
		case X of
		    Pattern ->
		    _ ->

I can imagine many uses of such functions (lists:filter-ing, filtering 
ets and mnesia tables with such fun's instead of match patterns or 
match specifications, etc). If such a function is not generated by the 
above macro but some more clever way, it could be at least as efficient 
as match patterns, maybe similar to match specifications.

I'm writing this mail to start a discussion. I think these two language 
constructs would be very useful, but maybe I'm wrong. So tell me any 
reason why these constructs are not viable or not needed in Erlang.

If we don't find such reasons and we consider these useful, I'm eager to 
propose an enhancement.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list