There’s nothing like travelling abroad to make you see your home country with new eyes. While your first fascination with everything new and different in the foreign land may enventually be replaced by homesickness, you always want to bring back a souvenir, a little bit of the best of where you’ve been.

C# is my home country these days, but I’ve been vacationing in F#. There’s a lot there that’s absolutely brilliant, like currying and partial application, workflows, and option types (no more NullReferenceExceptions!). But one of the first things I fell in love with in the language was pattern matching. Pattern matching in F# (and its ancestors ML and OCaml) is something like switch/case on steroids. Here’s a simple example of a switch/case in C#:

int i = 2 ; switch ( i ) { case 0 : Print ( "zero" ); case 1 : Print ( "one" ); case 2 : Print ( "two" ); default : Print ( "some other value" ); }

Here’s what the same logic would look like in F#:

let i = 2 match i with | 0 -> Print ( "zero" ) | 1 -> Print ( "one" ) | 2 -> Print ( "two" ) | _ -> Print ( "some other value" )

You can probably infer what’s going on. Pretty similar to our familiar switch/case . It checks each value and executes the clause on the right the first time it finds a match. The _ bit on the last line is equivalent to default in a switch/case : it always gets matched if we get that far. Basic stuff, but pattern matching can do so much more. Before I can explain that, though, we’ll need to take a little side trip to see another F# feature: discriminated unions.

Discriminated Unions

Where C# has enums, F# has discriminated unions. The main difference between the two is that each value in the union can have additional data fields. Imagine you want to enumerate the different kinds of image macros:

enum ImageMacro { Lolcat , Lolrus , ORlyOwl }

Pretty basic. Now if it’s a lolcat, we also want to note the text of the caption, and if it’s a lolrus, we want to note how many buckets it has. In C#, we’d have to ditch the enum and resort to a class hierarchy:

abstract class ImageMacro { } class Lolcat : ImageMacro { public string Caption ; public Lolcat ( string caption ) { Caption = caption ; } } class Lolrus : ImageMacro { public int Buckets ; public Lolrus ( int buckets ) { Buckets = buckets ; } } class ORlyOwl : ImageMacro { }

Classic OOP design, and it gets the job done. In F#, you can simply add fields to a discriminated union and accomplish the exact same thing:

type ImageMacro = | Lolcat of string | Lolrus of int | ORlyOwl

The “of string” says that when you make a Lolcat ImageMacro (and only a Lolcat) that you must also provide a caption. Likewise, the “of int” says that a Lolrus needs a number of buckets.

Pattern Matching Discriminated Unions

These two features, pattern matching and discriminated unions, go together in F# like gondolas and striped shirts. Each is much less awesome without the other. Now let’s get back to pattern matching and see something it can do that a switch/case definitely can’t. Given our above ImageMacro type, let’s say we want to print it out:

let image = Lolcat ( "I made you a cookie" ) match image with | Lolcat ( caption ) -> Print ( "Lolcat says '" + caption + "'" ) | Lolrus ( buckets ) -> Print ( "Lolrus has " + buckets + " buckets" ) | ORlyOwn -> Print ( "O RLY?" )

Now that’s pretty nice. Not only does it switch on what kind of image macro it is, it also pulls out the data associated with each one (“destructures” in the local parlance). This would definitely be nice to have in C#.

A Little Souvenir: Pattern.Match

So can we bring discriminated union pattern matching back to C#? Since C# doesn’t have discriminated unions, we’ll have to make it work with the little inheritance tree up there. Here’s what I got:

ImageMacro image = new Lolcat ( "I made you a cookie" ); Pattern . Match ( image ). Case < Lolcat , string > ( c => Print ( "Lolcat says '" + c + "'" )). Case < Lolrus , int > ( b => Print ( "I has " + b + " buckets" )). Case < ORlyOwl > (() => Print ( "O RLY?" ));

A little strange, but not too bad. Looks kind of like a switch/case but switches based on type. For Lolcat and Lolrus , we pull out the caption and number of buckets. How does this work? Let’s build it from the bottom up.

Case()

A single case in our pattern matcher needs to specify three things: the type being selected (Lolcat, Lolrus, etc.), the field(s) to pull out (if any), and the action to perform when the case is successfully matched. Let’s start with the simplest possible system: one that can only match a single value based on type, with no fields. Here’s the basic class:

public class Matcher < T > { public Matcher ( T value ) { mValue = value ; } public void Case < TCase >( Action action ) { if ( mValue is TCase ) action (); } private T mValue ; }

The action being passed in is a delegate, and we construct it using C# 3.5’s handy lambda notation. For the ORlyOwl, it’s:

() => Print ( "O RLY?" )

Aside from being a nice clean notation, the other nice thing about lambdas (and anonymous delegates) is that they can access variables defined in the outside scope. This lets our Case clauses do everything a regular case can do in a vanilla switch/case .

Chaining Cases Using a Fluent Interface

What we have so far is simple, but it only lets us select a single case. To be able to chain multiple cases together, we’re going to use something the hip kids are calling a “fluent interface”. The basic idea is to make methods return this so that you can call multiple methods on the same object by chaining.Them().Like().This() :

public Matcher < T > Case < TCase >( Action action ) { if ( mValue is TCase ) action (); return this ; }

Preventing Multiple Matches

There’s a problem here. A pattern should only match the first successful case. If we just allow arbitrary chaining, it would be possible to have multiple matches. Here’s a solution:

public virtual Matcher < T > Case < TCase >( Action action ) { if ( mValue is TCase ) { action (); return new NullMatcher < T >(); } return this ; }

Now when we have a successful match, instead of continuing the fluent interface and returning this , we return a NullMatcher<T> As you can probably guess, that class has the same methods as Matcher<T> , but never actually matches:

public class NullMatcher < T > : Matcher < T > { public override Matcher < T > Case < TCase >( Action action ) { return this ; } }

Extracting Fields

So far, we’re up to being able to do this:

Pattern . Match ( image ). Case < Lolcat > ( caption => Print ( "Lolcat says '?'" )). Case < Lolrus > ( buckets => Print ( "Lolrus has ? buckets" )). Case < ORlyOwl > (() => Print ( "O RLY?" ));

The last remaining step is to pull out the caption and buckets from the Lolcat and Lolrus types. We’ll do this by overloading Case() :

public virtual Matcher < T > Case < TCase , TArg >( Action < TArg > action ) { IMatchable < TArg > matchable = mValue as IMatchable < TArg >; if (( matchable != null ) && ( mValue is TCase )) { action ( matchable . GetArg ()); return new NullMatcher < T >(); } else { return this ; } }

What this does is both check the type and see if it implements IMatchable<T> . This little interface just lets a class expose a field for pattern matching. (We could also do this using reflection. That would free us up from having explicitly implement pattern matching support in classes, but would also incur a performance penalty and bind the pattern matching to the internals of the matched classes.) Here’s the interface and it’s implementation in our macro classes:

interface IMatchable < TArg > { TArg GetArg (); } class Lolcat : ImageMacro , IMatchable < string > { public string Caption ; public Lolcat ( string caption ) { Caption = caption ; } string IMatchable < string >. GetArg () { return Caption ; } } class Lolrus : ImageMacro , IMatchable < int > { public int NumBuckets ; public Lolrus ( int numBuckets ) { NumBuckets = numBuckets ; } int IMatchable < int >. GetArg () { return NumBuckets ; } }

I’m using explicit interface implementation here, because users only really care about using GetArg() when they’re doing pattern matching. Otherwise, there’s no reason to make it a visible part of the class’s interface.

Pattern

We’ve built back almost up the to the top. The last little bit left is the simplest:

Pattern . Match ( image )

Pattern is simply a static class with one method Match() :

class Pattern { public static Matcher < T > Match < T >( T value ) { return new Matcher < T >( value ); } }

The Pattern class exists simply because C# requires all functions to be in a class. However, constructing Matchers through Match<T> does have one nice side-effect: it lets the compiler infer the type parameter so you don’t have to explicitly write it out like you would when calling a constructor.

With this little bit in place, we’ve reached our goal of being able to get something like matching discriminated unions working in C#:

Pattern . Match ( image ). Case < Lolcat , string > ( c => Print ( "Lolcat says '" + c + "'" )). Case < Lolrus , int > ( b => Print ( "I has " + b + " buckets" )). Case < ORlyOwl > (() => Print ( "O RLY?" ));

But Wait, That’s Not All!

This is only the beginning of what we can do with our little matching class. Here are a few other things the full code lets you do:

Extracting Multiple Fields

In the example above, we only pull a single field out of a given case. F# supports multiple fields as well, as does the Matcher class (up to four):

Case < Loldog , string , int > (( caption , dogs ) => Print ( "'" + caption + "', says " + dogs + " hotdogs" )).

Default Case

It’s also useful to have a default -like case that will always succeed if reached:

Pattern . Match ( image ). Case < Lolrus , int > ( b => Print ( "I has " + buckets + " buckets" )). Default (() => Print ( "Default" ));

Equality Matching

Another way to match values is if they are equal. We can do this generically since Equals() is part of the .NET framework.

Pattern . Match ( "a string" ). Case ( "not" , () => Print ( "should not match" )). Case ( "a string" , () => Print ( "should match" ));

The example here uses strings, but this works with any type as long as it implements Equals() correctly.

Matching on Any Predicate

As you can see, there are a bunch of different ways users may want to match data, and it’s futile to try to bake all of them into the class. The most obvious solution then is to simply let users pass in an arbitrary predicate (a predicate is a function that returns a bool) and have the match succeed based on that:

Pattern . Match ( 123 ). Case ( value => value < 100 , () => Print ( "less than 100" )). Case ( value => value > 100 , () => Print ( "greater than 100" ));

You’ll note that in the final code below, all of the other matching types are built on top of this.

Returning a Value

F#, unlike C#, treats everything as an expression, even flow control statements like if/then and match . This means a match can return a result:

// F#: let isTwo = match 2 with | 2 -> true | _ -> false

where in C# you’d have to do an assignment:

// C# bool isTwo ; switch ( 2 ) { case 2 : isTwo = true ; default : isTwo = false ; }

Our pattern matching class can do this too, even within C#:

bool isTwo = Pattern . Match < int , bool >( 2 ). Case ( 2 , true ). Default ( false );

Conclusion

They say you never know your home until you travel abroad. I’ve been enjoying F# a lot, but C# still feels more comfortable to me. However, it’s always useful to see how other languages solve problems, and see what new techniques can be brought home with you. While our pattern matching class isn’t quite as clean in C# as it is in F#, I think it’s a useful tool in its own right.

If you’d like to play with it, I’ve put it up on bitbucket. Have fun!