Open aljazerzen opened 1 year ago
My major concern would be using ==
operator rather than full-blown pattern matching:
rather than full-blown pattern matching
Yes, agree. The RFC does not even solve what the issue that requested it. My intention was to make something quick and extend it later.
Problem with that is that we should at least decide on syntax for pattern matching, otherwise we will probably run into backward incompatibility when adding it later.
Compiler team agrees that this RFC can wait and be extended to do pattern matching when algebraic types are a thing.
One might say that this is not big enough change for a RFC, but hey let me have my fun.
I intentionally didn't push match in RFC title, because this is subject of the discussion.