RE: Non-exhaustive pattern match(es) warning in lambda functions

Mitar wrote:

Hi!

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Christian Maeder wrote:

...

I tend to introduce artificial error cases for "the Impossible", to avoid warnings, although the compiler generated error messages are better to locate the problem.

But this is often problematic. I was also doing that a lot. For example, having something like:

data Foo = Foo1 | Foo2 | Foo3

and than code:

case f of Foo -> doSomething _ -> undefined -- impossible

The problem is that if you extend later on Foo data type with for example Foo4 you are not warned that maybe you should also check this part of the code for possible changes (and maybe not impossible situation anymore). Because I like this best with strict typing. That if I change some type compiler warns me of all places in the code I have to update things.

So then I have this problem between wanting type system to help me but also wanting that it does not warn if there is no reason for that.

I could of course write all cases out. But this gets tedious with such functions:

bar :: Foo -> Foo -> Foo -> Foo

where only bar Foo1 Foo2 Foo3 is possible, but you have to write out all combinations, if you want it to warn you when you add additional constructor do Foo data type.

If GHC added support "or" patterns, you could write them out quite concisely: bar Foo1 Foo2 Foo3 = ... bar (Foo1|Foo2|Foo3) (Foo1|Foo2|Foo3) (Foo1|Foo2|Foo3) = error "..." Ganesh =============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html ===============================================================================