Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Could the same be said for this library?

This is clearly answered on the page.

"By default match() is strict. If no pattern matches, it raises a MatchError"

That's different. Haskell and Rust pattern matching isn't just sugar for convenience. It doesn't just check if a pattern matched. It checks if your patterns covers every possible state.

Please note that my psuedo code in haskell was not function calls. It's a function definition using pattern matching in the function signature.

Think of Maybe as an enum with two values. A Just(a) and a Nothing.

The below definition basically says if the enum enters a function as a Just(int a) return int a. (Just(str) is a type error handled by the signature). If the enum enters the function as a Nothing return -1.

  handleMaybeNum :: Maybe int -> int
  handleMaybeNum Just a = a
  handleMaybeNUm Nothing = -1 
if the last pattern match (Nothing) isn't written, the compiler knows that your logic isn't handling a specific case, and it lets you know about this BEFORE doing any matching. The haskell compiler will literally tell you that your function is missing logic to handle certain cases.

It is a simple mechanism that actually proves your programs to be correct. Type checking proves your program to be type safe. Exclusive use of pattern matching in haskell proves that your program logic handled every possible permutation of that type entering a function.

It is a powerful mechanism that is far greater than unit testing. Unit testing just says your is program correct for a specific test case. Haskell pattern matching and type checking provides a proof across every parameter permutation.

I realize python is an interpreted language. So an error can only be thrown at runtime. What I expect for an exhaustive match check in python is this:

        Just(a), lambda a: a)

        Just(a), lambda a: a
        Nothing, 1)
Both matches above have produce a successful match with Just(1) matching Just(a) in the first expression. However for haskell pattern matching the first match will STILL throw an error because the Nothing case for the Maybe enum was not handled.

Apparently from the examples in the docs it clearly does not do this. You can literally match across types and it is unreasonable for the match operator to throw an error if you didn't cover every possible type that exists.

> That's different.

I didn't say it was the same. I said that if he bothered to read the link he would have seen the answer to his question.

Yes, while interesting this is pretty irrelevant for Python which does not have static checks.

You clearly aren't caught up with the latest changes in python. The interpreter doesn't have static checks, but the language supports external tooling to do this.

Look up type annotations for python 3 and the mypy external type checker.

Static type checking is now a very real thing with modern versions of python.

Additionally it is possible to code the match function to implement the functionality I am talking about during runtime instead of compile time. Definitely not irrelevant.

> Additionally it is possible to code the match function to implement the functionality I am talking about during runtime instead of compile time.

Maybe, but I'm not sure there's more value in that.

Having match crash immediately helps you identify the branch error without explicitly writing a test case for it. It is equivalent to raising an exception.

That's misleading. It will only raise an exception of the actual value is not matched. Haskell generates a compile error before even running if that's something that might happen. It is the old distinction between static and dynamic typing applied to pattern matching.

When exactly are you expecting Python, an interpreted language, to raise a compiler error?

You can raise the error as soon as the match operator is executed. Even if match has a valid match with the expression, if all the branches aren't evaluated the function can still raise an error.

This allows for early catching of logic errors during unit testing and negates the need for additional tests.

I guess, but I think a possible solution here would be a pylint plugin to show a warning so you don't have to wait for a runtime exception.

> That's misleading.

It's not misleading. It answers the question: there is no compile-time check. The OP didn't have to "wonder" they could have just read the link.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact