Option types and pattern matching.

[Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d]

On 25/10/15 7:05 PM, Nerve wrote:
> On Sunday, 25 October 2015 at 05:53:32 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure e.g. opEquals/opCmp should work here.
>> Shouldn't need to switch upon a primitive type. Theoretically could do
>> it on a e.g. struct. Which has the special comparison that you want.
>
> Hm...these are boolean operators. This means we can only compare two
> cases at a time, does it not? Negates the strength of a switch/pattern
> match, unless there's something I'm missing.

Well you only need to compare two cases.
I need to spend a bit of time, to see if what I think can be done, is 
actually possible. Essentially toying with your 'Some' types comparison 
rules.

> What are these variable length structs you mention, and their special
> comparisons? How would we use them?

Oh the idea was a complete flop. It's just an example of how welcoming 
ideas are. Just no guarantee they'll make it to even a consideration 
from Walter.