Removal candidates in patterns

[Olaf Chitil]

Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:

>I agree that if (n+k) patterns go, then so should k patterns.  Both are
>overloaded, and that's the root of their complexity.
>
>Personally I think ~ patterns are great, and we are now talking about !
>patterns, a kind of dual to ~ patterns.  So at least I think we should
>un-couple the two discussions.
>  
>
I agree that it is sensible to decouple the two discussions, so just add 
k patterns to n+k patterns.

However, ~ patterns are really currently the most complicated patterns 
and ! patterns match them in their complexity. Personally I believe that 
programmers should strive for more laziness, rarely for more strictness. 
I do not like that you can add ! in lots of places where it doesn't make 
any difference, e.g.

f [] !x = rhs1
f (y:ys) !x = rhs2

is the same as

f [] !x = rhs1
f (y:ys) x = rhs2


Your motivating example

f2 !x !y | g x = rhs1
            | otherwise = rhs2

I would express as

f2 x y = x `seq` y `seq` if g x then rhs1 else rhs2

Now you will probably counter with a definition where you can fall 
through the guard to the next equation. In my opinion that just shows 
how horrible guards are (and I would propose their removal if I saw any 
chance of success).

Ciao,
Olaf