Andre van Tonder <andre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
It seems that the constructor paradigm chosen in the draft does not easily
accommodate future extensions for pattern matching. The problem is that a
constructor can be many to one. E.g., in
(define-type foo (x y)
(fields a immutable (+ x y)))
we cannot automatically generate a pattern that can be used (like in MzScheme):
(match (make-foo 1 2)
((make-foo x y) .....))
This is true as far as pattern matching by position is concerned. I
personally think this is a good thing, as pattern matching by position
scales very poorly.