C# Pattern Matching • Hacker News Board

Re: C# Pattern Matching

#211

Post by to11mtm » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 1:27 AM UTC

tablloyd wrote: post #163

to11mtm wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started using Rider recently. It's faster yes, but seems to be a bit more memory hungry out of the gate than VS+Resharper. There is one HUGE thing I miss however - the Package Manager console. There's still a few things I have to do in there and thus have to switch back to VS.

Theres a nuget & terminal tab across the bottom bar which combined offer the same functionality as the nuget package manager console.

See my other reply. There's not 100% replication, there are some things you just plain can't do outside VS. =(

Re: C# Pattern Matching

#212

Post by zenexer » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 1:29 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #72

zenexer wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C# isn't too hesitant to introduce new keywords because it supports contextual keywords.[0] Many C# keywords are also valid identifiers. In this case, using `match` in place of `where` probably wouldn't have introduced any incompatibilities. In fact, `where` isn't a reserved keyword, either--you can have an identifier named `where`.[1] To an existing C# programmer, `where` makes a lot of sense, since it's used for ma…

"where" is for match guards. Do you mean use "match" instead of "switch"? Given that the statement construct is already called "switch", it makes sense that the expression form doesn't try to use a different keyword for what is largely the same thing.

I agree, which is why I assumed the parent was referring to `where` rather than `switch`.

Re: C# Pattern Matching

#213

Post by zenexer » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 1:31 AM UTC

ygra wrote: post #177

zenexer wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C# isn't too hesitant to introduce new keywords because it supports contextual keywords.[0] Many C# keywords are also valid identifiers. In this case, using `match` in place of `where` probably wouldn't have introduced any incompatibilities. In fact, `where` isn't a reserved keyword, either--you can have an identifier named `where`.[1] To an existing C# programmer, `where` makes a lot of sense, since it's used for ma…

C# has never added new reserved keywords. All keywords added after 1.0 are contextual and can still be used as identifiers. With some things like nameof, they even get their special meaning only if there's nothing else of that name that could be called. They take backwards compatibility of existing code quite serious. In fact, the only instance I can remember where C# had a breaking change was in C# 5 with how the fo…

There have been breaking API changes--.NET Core and the upcoming .NET 5 being good examples--but they're generally handled well. I can't recall any major breaking language changes, though.

They don't let backwards compatibility keep them from introducing new features and syntaxes, which is quite nice. Most languages that want to avoid breaking backwards compatibility seem too hesitant to introduce new language features.

Re: C# Pattern Matching

#214

Post by ygra » Thu, Feb 13, 2020, 2:39 PM UTC

zenexer wrote: post #213

ygra wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C# has never added new reserved keywords. All keywords added after 1.0 are contextual and can still be used as identifiers. With some things like nameof, they even get their special meaning only if there's nothing else of that name that could be called. They take backwards compatibility of existing code quite serious. In fact, the only instance I can remember where C# had a breaking change was in C# 5 with how the fo…

There have been breaking API changes--.NET Core and the upcoming .NET 5 being good examples--but they're generally handled well. I can't recall any major breaking language changes, though. They don't let backwards compatibility keep them from introducing new features and syntaxes, which is quite nice. Most languages that want to avoid breaking backwards compatibility seem too hesitant to introduce new language featur…

That's why I was referring to C#, not .NET.