Re: Does ANSI Common Lisp have pattern matching?

On May 5, 11:16 am, Jon Harrop <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
On May 5, 1:24 am, Jon Harrop <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Nonsense. Alan gave an excellent example of when pattern matching is
useful. There are many more.

And all different.

And all benefit from a useful core pattern matcher.

Is that core re or what? What happens if that core is more powerful
(read expensive) than what I need? If it is less powerful, then
what? What if its token syntax doesn't match my needs? Oops - that
"core pattern matcher" just became a constraint.

Lisp actually has lots of pattern matchers. And, unlike other
languages, rolling your own is painless enough that not using one
isn't a huge problem.

Things are different for languages that make library-based pattern
matching inconvenient.

However, the basic fact remains - Harrop doesn't like Lisp. Good for
him. Why doesn't he take his dislike somewhere else? (Are all OCaml/
F# advocates so rude?)



.