Search code examples
rascal

Types for pattern variables


I found that sometimes I must give types explicitly for pattern variables, otherwise Rascal would not work as expected. The following session in the Console says it all:

rascal>data foo = bar(int);
ok

rascal>int x = 1;
int: 1

rascal>[x | bar(x) <- [bar(2), bar(3)]];
list[void]: []

rascal>[x | bar(int x) <- [bar(2), bar(3)]];
list[int]: [2,3]

Why did this happen?


Solution

  • In the current version of Rascal it is such that variables in patterns that exist in the surrounding scope are not matched and shadowed, but rather checked for equality.

    So:

     <int x, x> := <2,2> => true // x is first introduced and then checked for equality
     <int x, x> := <2,3> => false // x is first introduced and then checked for equality
    
     { int x = 1; if (x := 2) println("true"); else println("false"); // false!
    

    And this holds for all places where we use pattern matching.

    We have had several complaints about this particular design of "non-linear matching", and we intend to add an operator soon ($) to identify the intention of taking something from the surround scope. If the operator is not used, then shadowing will occur:

     <int x, $x> := <2,2> => true // x is first introduced and then checked for equality
     <int x, $x> := <2,3> => false // x is first introduced and then checked for equality
     <int x, x> := <2,3>  // static error due to illegal shadowing
     <int x, y> := <2,3> => true // x and y are both introduced
    
     { int x = 1; if ($x := 2) println("true"); else println("false"); // false!
     { int x = 1; if (x := 2) println("true <x>"); else println("false"); // true, prints 2! or perhaps a static error.
    

    Might also add some additional power to get expressions into patterns as in:

     <1, ${1 + 2 + 3}> := <1,6> // true