Small mention about disjunctive patterns #70
Conversation
Disjunctive patterns are super valuable when you (rightly) don't want to use a wildcard, but have a lot of cases that match to the same thing. I think they should at least be mentioned in the docs even if they may not warrant a whole sub-section.
|
Ah jeez. I'm sorry about triggering so many builds! |
|
I refactored the intro to be simpler, and only mentioned the term disjunctive patterns as a brief aside. I also cleaned up the code examples and added a note about the refactoring advantages (mainly that you can have multiple disjunctive pattern sets unlike wildcards). This is getting a bit large. So, it might be reasonable to split it into its own sub-section, but I'll leave that decision to you, of course. |
|
I like it! Maybe it would make sense to put this content further up in the the "Exhaustiveness Check" Section with a sub header like "Match multiple cases to one expression" or similar? That way it would not get lost in the Tips / Tricks section |
|
Moved it to its own sub-section. LMK if you'd like any other tweaks. |
|
Hey @AHBruns. Thanks for the effort; this is indeed valuable to document more explicitly. I'll go ahead and merge it, but I'll rewrite it a bit. |
|
Done. See my comments at db82e57. Thanks again! |
Disjunctive patterns are super valuable when you (rightly) don't want to use a wildcard, but have a lot of cases that match to the same thing. I think they should at least be mentioned in the docs even if they may not warrant a whole sub-section.
Because of the tiny size of this change, I just went ahead and opened a PR since it took about the same amount of work as opening an issue on the topic. I hope that's okay.