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 documentation used to refer to a pattern-based type definition using the
type Patternnotation. For example,complexwould 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
matchingfor that usage. With syntactic sugar, the recommended way to describe thecomplextype above would now be:The interpreter and compiler should be updated to match.