Re: [RFC] Pattern Matching

On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 10:09 PM Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote: > > > > 1. There are mentions that any type present in a function parameter > > signature and return value is a valid pattern matching. > > But are there any plans to extend the pattern-matching-syntax to > > parameter types and return values? > > > > Of course, with some restrictions: without variable pinning.And without > > variable binding on return type, but that could work on parameter types.. > > If that's possible or already planned, I think it's worth mentioning it > > in the future scope section. > > See the linked "speculative extensions" document. It's mentioned there, > but it hasn't gone beyond "Larry thinks it would be kinda cool to write > public int $x is >0. That's definitely out of scope > for now, but I'm > very open to discussing it in the future. > That is not exactly what I meant. Since all types are valid patterns, can't we enlarge the type set to include more things from the pattern set? in future RFCs. Something like this: `function process(Point(x: 3|4, y: $y) $p): ['a' => int, 'b' => float & >0]`. -- Alex