You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The documentation used to refer to a pattern-based type definition using the type Pattern notation. For example, complex would be defined as
complex is type complex (Re:real, Im:real)
This notation is a bit confusing since it does not explain why something is a type. Also, I would like to be able to use type (Expression) to return the type of an expression (although that might be typeof)
The documentation now uses matching for that usage. With syntactic sugar, the recommended way to describe the complex type above would now be:
type complex is matching complex(Re:real, Im:real)
The interpreter and compiler should be updated to match.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The documentation used to refer to a pattern-based type definition using the
type Pattern
notation. For example,complex
would be defined asThis notation is a bit confusing since it does not explain why something is a
type
. Also, I would like to be able to usetype (Expression)
to return the type of an expression (although that might betypeof
)The documentation now uses
matching
for that usage. With syntactic sugar, the recommended way to describe thecomplex
type above would now be:The interpreter and compiler should be updated to match.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: