# Pattern Matching: Wot's... Uh the Deal?

The patch will not be noticeable if the pattern is skilfully matched.

—Idabelle McGlauflin, Handicraft for Girls

Pattern matching is everywhere in Haskell. It's simple, but very interesting: there's more to it than just *from left to right* and *from top to bottom*. One way to better understand pattern matching is to answer two questions:

- What is the syntax of pattern matching?
- What are the semantics of pattern matching?

In order to summarize the different types of patterns for pattern matching, we can study the definitions of three standard Haskell functions: `span`

, `unzip`

, and `fromMaybe`

.

First, let's consider the `span`

function, which splits a list into the longest prefix of elements that satisfy a predicate and the remainder of the list, as defined in `GHC.List`

:

```
span :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> ([a],[a])
span _ xs@[] = (xs,xs)
span p xs@(x:xs')
| p x = let (ys,zs) = span p xs' in (x:ys,zs)
| otherwise = ([],xs)
```

The `span`

function has:

A

*variable*,`p`

, which matches anything and binds`p`

to the value matched against.A

*wildcard pattern*,`_`

, which matches anything and binds nothing.Two

*as pattern*s,`xs@[]`

and`xs@(x:xs')`

, which match something and bind`xs`

to`[]`

or appropriate values if`[]`

and`(x:xs')`

match something, respectively.

Now, let's take a look at the `unzip`

function, which "transforms a list of pairs into a list of first components and a list of second components," as defined in `GHC.List`

:

```
unzip :: [(a,b)] -> ([a],[b])
unzip = foldr (\(a,b) ~(as,bs) -> (a:as,b:bs)) ([],[])
```

The `unzip`

function contains:

- A
*lazy pattern*,`~(as,bs)`

, which matches anything, and binds`as`

and`bs`

to appropriate values if`(as,bs)`

matches something, or to`undefined`

otherwise.

Finally, let's consider the `fromMaybe`

function, which takes a default value and a `Maybe`

, and returns the value contained in the `Maybe`

or the default value if there's nothing there, as defined in `Data.Maybe`

:

```
fromMaybe :: a -> Maybe a -> a
fromMaybe d mx =
case mx of
Nothing -> d
Just x -> x
```

The `fromMaybe`

function contains regular patterns inside a `case`

expression. In reality, all patterns are transformed to `case`

expressions, and the (formal) semantics of pattern matching are actually the semantics of `case`

expressions, as described in the Haskell 2010 Language Report.

However, we can study how pattern matching works in terms of patterns other than the ones inside `case`

expressions, that is, the informal semantics of pattern matching.

In short, the informal semantics of pattern matching are as follows:

*Patterns*are*matched*against values.- Pattern matching may
*succeed*,*fail*, or*diverge*(that is,`undefined`

).

- Pattern matching proceeds
*from left to right*and*from top to bottom*.

- Patterns can be
*irrefutable*, which always succeed, even when matched against`undefined`

, or*refutable*, which may succeed or fail, but always diverge when matched against`undefined`

.

Additionally, there are five different types of irrefutable patterns: variables, wildcards, as patterns where the actual pattern is irrefutable, and lazy patterns^{1}. All other patterns (for instance, `[]`

and `Nothing`

, which are constructors defined by `data`

) are refutable.

(For more information about pattern matching and the (formal and informal) semantics of pattern matching, see section 3.7 of the Haskell 2010 Language Report or section 4 of A Gentle Introduction to Haskell 98.)

There are subtle differences between refutable and irrefutable patterns. As examples, let's analyze two computations taken from the Haskell 2010 Language Report:

```
> (\ ~(x,y) -> 0) undefined
0
```

Here, matching the lazy pattern `~(x,y)`

against `undefined`

succeeds, and binds both `x`

and `y`

to `undefined`

because matching the pattern `(x,y)`

against `undefined`

would diverge. Since binding does not imply evaluation and neither `x`

nor `y`

are used anywhere else, the result of the computation is `0`

.

What happens if we remove the lazy pattern?

```
> (\ (x,y) -> 0) undefined
undefined
```

In this case, matching `(x,y)`

against `undefined`

diverges and, for that reason, the computation diverges, that is, `undefined`

.

```
> (\ (x:xs) -> x:x:xs) undefined
undefined
```

Here, the computation diverges because matching `(x:xs)`

against `undefined`

diverges.

What happens if we add a lazy pattern?:

```
> (\ ~(x:xs) -> x:x:xs) undefined
undefined:undefined:undefined
```

Matching `~(x:xs)`

against `undefined`

succeeds. Since matching `(x:xs)`

against `undefined`

would diverge, both `x`

and `xs`

are bound to `undefined`

. Thus, `x:x:xs`

becomes `undefined:undefined:undefined`

, a list which GHCi would start printing and stop after the first `undefined`

, that is, `[undefined`

.

In section 4.2 of A Gentle Introduction to Haskell 98, the authors discuss two slightly different versions of the `take`

function to show how subtle changes in patterns yield different functions.

To wrap up, let's compare two slightly different versions of the `drop`

function:

```
drop1 :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
drop1 n xs | n <= 0 = xs
drop1 _ [] = []
drop1 n (x:xs) = drop1 (n - 1) xs
drop2 :: Int -> [a] -> [a]
drop2 _ [] = []
drop2 n xs | n <= 0 = xs
drop2 n (x:xs) = drop2 (n - 1) xs
```

(`drop1`

is just `drop`

as defined in `GHC.List`

.)

What happens if the first argument of `drop`

is `undefined`

?

```
> drop1 undefined []
undefined
> drop2 undefined []
[]
```

`drop2`

is more defined with respect to its first argument. In other words, `drop1`

is strict in its first argument, whereas `drop2`

is nonstrict^{2}.

What happens if the second argument of `drop`

is `undefined`

?

```
> drop1 0 undefined
undefined
> drop2 0 undefined
undefined
```

In this case, both functions are equally undefined, that is, both are strict in its second argument.

Even though both functions satisfy the specification of the `drop`

function (they return the suffix of a list after a given number of elements), their meaning is slightly different. As Hudak, Peterson, and Fasel suggest, "it is difficult to say (...) which definition is better. (...) In certain applications, it may make a difference."

This is by no means a thorough examination of pattern matching in Haskell. If anything, these examples show that thinking in terms of the semantics of pattern matching, and, more specifically, in terms of `undefined`

, irrefutable and refutable patterns, and nonstrict and strict functions, is interesting and can really help in better understanding pattern matching and Haskell in general.

Happy pattern matching!