Pattern matching is a simple tool that will make your code safer and easier to read.

Consider the following code that converts an Int to a string.

public enum Language { Spanish, English } public static string convert(int number, Language lang) { string ret = ""; if (lang == Language.English) { switch(number) { case 0: ret = "zero"; break; case 1: ret = "one"; break; default: ret = "..."; break; } } else if (lang == Language.Spanish) { switch(number) { case 0: ret = "zero"; break; case 1: ret = "uno"; break; default: ret = "~~~"; break; } } return ret; }

What happens when we make this simple change?

public enum Language { Spanish, English, German }

Does the code still compile? Sure does! Does the compiler/IDE offer us any indication that something is missing? Nope! Our code has a potential bug that is only exposed at run-time, and nothing will tell us that. We made it fail gracefully by ensuring our code always returns at least an empty string, but we have created a bug that can only really be caught by something external: either automated tests or manual checking.

The OO purists and “Anti-If” guys are probably leaping out of their seats. “Use classes and an interface!” they yell. Ok, sure. I assert that it just makes things even worse.

public interface ILanguage { String convert(int num); } public class Spanish : ILanguage { public String convert (int num) { var ret = ""; switch (num) { case 0: ret = "zero"; break; case 1: ret = "uno"; break; default: ret = "~~~"; break; } return ret; } } public class English : ILanguage { public String convert (int num) { var ret = ""; switch (num) { case 0: ret = "zero"; break; case 1: ret = "one"; break; default: ret = "..."; break; } return ret; } } // somewhere else... public static string convert(int x, Language lang) { return getLanguage(lang).convert(x); } public static ILanguage getLanguage(Language lang) { switch (lang) { case Language.English: return new English() ; break; case Language.Spanish: return new Spanish() ; break; default: throw new Exception(); } }

We have turned 21 lines in one file into 36 in three files (not counting namespaces and imports). Does this new structure give us any additional safety when we add a new concrete implementation? How about when we add a new enum value? This code is even more likely to cause bugs than the first, because now we have an implicit coupling between the enum and the concrete class. We could get rid of the enum, and “pass in concrete class” but something still has to say which concrete class to instantiate.

Imagine if the compiler could warn us when either the enum or the class changed. Imagine if instead of having to hunt down the possible uses, we could just compile and fix the errors.

Good news, we can!

Check out this F# code. If you have never seen F# before, I know, it looks completely crazy! It still looks a little weird to me, but just try to read it. I think you will surprise yourself. This is a function called convert , and if you keep in mind that the types always come AFTER the value, the code makes a lot more sense. A parameter in C# would be int number ; in F# it is written number:Int . Don’t ask me why. The match number with is just how you do the equivalent to a switch/case in C#, but you will see in a second it is a lot more powerful!

let convert(number:Int, lang:Language) :string = match lang with | Language.English -> match number with | 1 -> "one" | 2 -> "two" | _ -> "..."

We are using the same enum from the C# file, but it is missing something, right? Where are the Spanish and German parts? I try to compile this and what do I see?

~/Program.fs(11,11): Warning FS0025: Incomplete pattern matches on this expression. For example, the value 'enum<Language> (0)' may indicate a case not covered by the pattern(s). (FS0025)

Spittake mushroom soup, the compiler just caught a potential bug for us! A C# run-time bug no less! Not only is this very powerful, but it is so simple. I can code the way I normally do, only now I get additional safety for free! And no unit or integration test would ever catch this class of errors.

Heck, if you really want to keep your classes and interfaces in C#, you can have some “glue code” in F#, and still get all the benefit!

let convert(number, lang) = match lang with | Language.English -> English().convert(number)

This still calls the C# class above, and now the compiler gives us a warning when we add a new enum value!

In this way, pattern matching is able to clearly remove edge cases. We converted an unsafe if and switch statement into a type safe match .

BONUS ROUND!

What we have already seen of pattern matching makes it a better switch/case but what about the if statement? Thankfully the match/with statement allows for patterns matched to have a when clause which only matches when the condition is true:

let convert(number, lang) = match lang with | Language.English -> match number with | x when x > 5 -> "Large!" | 0 -> "zero" | Language.Spanish -> match number with | x when x > 5 -> "Grande!" | 0 -> "zero"

Running the compiler again give us:

/home/jack/programming/monads-fsharp/monads-fsharp/Program.fs(19,19): Warning FS0025: Incomplete pattern matches on this expression. For example, the value '1' may indicate a case not covered by the pattern(s). However, a pattern rule with a 'when' clause might successfully match this value. (FS0025) (monads-fsharp)

That’s right, it checks numbers too.

Lastly, it is possible to match on a combination of values, all at once. We can convert our more complex structure to something simpler using this trick, and the compiler is still intelligent enough to check for missing cases.

let convert(number, lang) = match lang, number with | Language.English, 0 -> "zero" | Language.English, 1 -> "one" | Language.English, x when x > 1 -> "Larger than one!" | Language.English, _ -> "dunno" | Language.Spanish, 0 -> "zero" | Language.Spanish, x when x > 5 -> "Grande!"

Here we introduce the _ which is equivalent to a default in a C# switch/case statement. The pattern Language.English, _ -> sets a default for any number in Language.English not already matched. The bug in the code here is the missing Language.Spanish with numbers 1-5. What does the compiler say?

Program.fs(11,11): Warning FS0025: Incomplete pattern matches on this expression. For example, the value '(_,1)' may indicate a case not covered by the pattern(s). However, a pattern rule with a 'when' clause might successfully match this value. (FS0025) (monads-fsharp)

Lastly, let’s show the final result of converting our original function to F#. If your entire function is just a single pattern match, you can remove the match/with line and use the function keyword, and simply match against the parameters (which I reversed for clarity, but do not need to be written).

let convert = function | Language.English, 0 -> "zero" | Language.English, 1 -> "one" | Language.English, _ -> "..." | Language.Spanish, 0 -> "zero" | Language.Spanish, 1 -> "uno" | Language.Spanish, _ -> "~~~"

Our original 17 line convert function, converted into a safer 7 lines! I never had to specify what the types of lang, number and the return type are, because the compiler is able to figure that out from the code I wrote.

If you are not convinced at this point that pattern matching is a big step forward in the safety and ease of development, I am not sure what else would convince you. More safety means less time spent tracking down bugs and more time adding on features!