This changes no behavior. It only removes/updates a couple Unison examples in Haskell comments so they're no longer malformed Unison code.
Interesting/controversial decisions
The docs claim all destructuring bind LHSs must be parenthesized. However, the Haskell code has two examples where this is not true. One of them even uses a special list pattern on the LHS of a restructuring bind. The docs explicitly say this is not supported.
Reading through TermParser, I couldn't find a single reason this would fail, and yet I couldn't get it to succeed in UCM.
Suggesting the docs are right and the comments are not.
Test coverage
No tests because it's just comment changes.
Loose ends
One of the comments I edited makes a claim about how destructuring binds are desugared to a match structure. I have not independently verified this is true; I only edited the malformed restructuring binds.
aryairani
commented
2 weeks ago
Overview
This changes no behavior. It only removes/updates a couple Unison examples in Haskell comments so they're no longer malformed Unison code.
Interesting/controversial decisions
The docs claim all destructuring bind LHSs must be parenthesized. However, the Haskell code has two examples where this is not true. One of them even uses a special list pattern on the LHS of a restructuring bind. The docs explicitly say this is not supported.
Reading through TermParser, I couldn't find a single reason this would fail, and yet I couldn't get it to succeed in UCM.
Suggesting the docs are right and the comments are not.
Test coverage
No tests because it's just comment changes.
Loose ends
One of the comments I edited makes a claim about how destructuring binds are desugared to a
matchstructure. I have not independently verified this is true; I only edited the malformed restructuring binds.