What is 'Pattern Matching' in functional languages?

Question

I\'m reading about functional programming and I\'ve noticed that Pattern Matching is mentioned in many articles as one of the core features of functional languages.

Answer 1

Understanding pattern matching requires explaining three parts:

1. Algebraic data types.
2. What pattern matching is
3. Why its awesome.

Algebraic data types in a nutshell

ML-like functional languages allow you define simple data types called "disjoint unions" or "algebraic data types". These data structures are simple containers, and can be recursively defined. For example:

type 'a list =
    | Nil
    | Cons of 'a * 'a list

defines a stack-like data structure. Think of it as equivalent to this C#:

public abstract class List<T>
{
    public class Nil : List<T> { }
    public class Cons : List<T>
    {
        public readonly T Item1;
        public readonly List<T> Item2;
        public Cons(T item1, List<T> item2)
        {
            this.Item1 = item1;
            this.Item2 = item2;
        }
    }
}

So, the Cons and Nil identifiers define simple a simple class, where the of x * y * z * ... defines a constructor and some data types. The parameters to the constructor are unnamed, they're identified by position and data type.

You create instances of your a list class as such:

let x = Cons(1, Cons(2, Cons(3, Cons(4, Nil))))

Which is the same as:

Stack<int> x = new Cons(1, new Cons(2, new Cons(3, new Cons(4, new Nil()))));

Pattern matching in a nutshell

Pattern matching is a kind of type-testing. So let's say we created a stack object like the one above, we can implement methods to peek and pop the stack as follows:

let peek s =
    match s with
    | Cons(hd, tl) -> hd
    | Nil -> failwith "Empty stack"

let pop s =
    match s with
    | Cons(hd, tl) -> tl
    | Nil -> failwith "Empty stack"

The methods above are equivalent (although not implemented as such) to the following C#:

public static T Peek<T>(Stack<T> s)
{
    if (s is Stack<T>.Cons)
    {
        T hd = ((Stack<T>.Cons)s).Item1;
        Stack<T> tl = ((Stack<T>.Cons)s).Item2;
        return hd;
    }
    else if (s is Stack<T>.Nil)
        throw new Exception("Empty stack");
    else
        throw new MatchFailureException();
}

public static Stack<T> Pop<T>(Stack<T> s)
{
    if (s is Stack<T>.Cons)
    {
        T hd = ((Stack<T>.Cons)s).Item1;
        Stack<T> tl = ((Stack<T>.Cons)s).Item2;
        return tl;
    }
    else if (s is Stack<T>.Nil)
        throw new Exception("Empty stack");
    else
        throw new MatchFailureException();
}

(Almost always, ML languages implement pattern matching without run-time type-tests or casts, so the C# code is somewhat deceptive. Let's brush implementation details aside with some hand-waving please :) )

Data structure decomposition in a nutshell

Ok, let's go back to the peek method:

let peek s =
    match s with
    | Cons(hd, tl) -> hd
    | Nil -> failwith "Empty stack"

The trick is understanding that the hd and tl identifiers are variables (errm... since they're immutable, they're not really "variables", but "values" ;) ). If s has the type Cons, then we're going to pull out its values out of the constructor and bind them to variables named hd and tl.

Pattern matching is useful because it lets us decompose a data structure by its shape instead of its contents. So imagine if we define a binary tree as follows:

type 'a tree =
    | Node of 'a tree * 'a * 'a tree
    | Nil

We can define some tree rotations as follows:

let rotateLeft = function
    | Node(a, p, Node(b, q, c)) -> Node(Node(a, p, b), q, c)
    | x -> x

let rotateRight = function
    | Node(Node(a, p, b), q, c) -> Node(a, p, Node(b, q, c))
    | x -> x

(The let rotateRight = function constructor is syntax sugar for let rotateRight s = match s with ....)

So in addition to binding data structure to variables, we can also drill down into it. Let's say we have a node let x = Node(Nil, 1, Nil). If we call rotateLeft x, we test x against the first pattern, which fails to match because the right child has type Nil instead of Node. It'll move to the next pattern, x -> x, which will match any input and return it unmodified.

For comparison, we'd write the methods above in C# as:

public abstract class Tree<T>
{
    public abstract U Match<U>(Func<U> nilFunc, Func<Tree<T>, T, Tree<T>, U> nodeFunc);

    public class Nil : Tree<T>
    {
        public override U Match<U>(Func<U> nilFunc, Func<Tree<T>, T, Tree<T>, U> nodeFunc)
        {
            return nilFunc();
        }
    }

    public class Node : Tree<T>
    {
        readonly Tree<T> Left;
        readonly T Value;
        readonly Tree<T> Right;

        public Node(Tree<T> left, T value, Tree<T> right)
        {
            this.Left = left;
            this.Value = value;
            this.Right = right;
        }

        public override U Match<U>(Func<U> nilFunc, Func<Tree<T>, T, Tree<T>, U> nodeFunc)
        {
            return nodeFunc(Left, Value, Right);
        }
    }

    public static Tree<T> RotateLeft(Tree<T> t)
    {
        return t.Match(
            () => t,
            (l, x, r) => r.Match(
                () => t,
                (rl, rx, rr) => new Node(new Node(l, x, rl), rx, rr))));
    }

    public static Tree<T> RotateRight(Tree<T> t)
    {
        return t.Match(
            () => t,
            (l, x, r) => l.Match(
                () => t,
                (ll, lx, lr) => new Node(ll, lx, new Node(lr, x, r))));
    }
}

For seriously.

Pattern matching is awesome

You can implement something similar to pattern matching in C# using the visitor pattern, but its not nearly as flexible because you can't effectively decompose complex data structures. Moreover, if you are using pattern matching, the compiler will tell you if you left out a case. How awesome is that?

Think about how you'd implement similar functionality in C# or languages without pattern matching. Think about how you'd do it without test-tests and casts at runtime. Its certainly not hard, just cumbersome and bulky. And you don't have the compiler checking to make sure you've covered every case.

So pattern matching helps you decompose and navigate data structures in a very convenient, compact syntax, it enables the compiler to check the logic of your code, at least a little bit. It really is a killer feature.

Answer 2

Pattern matching allows you to match a value (or an object) against some patterns to select a branch of the code. From the C++ point of view, it may sound a bit similar to the switch statement. In functional languages, pattern matching can be used for matching on standard primitive values such as integers. However, it is more useful for composed types.

First, let's demonstrate pattern matching on primitive values (using extended pseudo-C++ switch):

switch(num) {
  case 1: 
    // runs this when num == 1
  case n when n > 10: 
    // runs this when num > 10
  case _: 
    // runs this for all other cases (underscore means 'match all')
}

The second use deals with functional data types such as tuples (which allow you to store multiple objects in a single value) and discriminated unions which allow you to create a type that can contain one of several options. This sounds a bit like enum except that each label can also carry some values. In a pseudo-C++ syntax:

enum Shape { 
  Rectangle of { int left, int top, int width, int height }
  Circle of { int x, int y, int radius }
}

A value of type Shape can now contain either Rectangle with all the coordinates or a Circle with the center and the radius. Pattern matching allows you to write a function for working with the Shape type:

switch(shape) { 
  case Rectangle(l, t, w, h): 
    // declares variables l, t, w, h and assigns properties
    // of the rectangle value to the new variables
  case Circle(x, y, r):
    // this branch is run for circles (properties are assigned to variables)
}

Finally, you can also use nested patterns that combine both of the features. For example, you could use Circle(0, 0, radius) to match for all shapes that have the center in the point [0, 0] and have any radius (the value of the radius will be assigned to the new variable radius).

This may sound a bit unfamiliar from the C++ point of view, but I hope that my pseudo-C++ make the explanation clear. Functional programming is based on quite different concepts, so it makes better sense in a functional language!

Answer 3

It means that instead of writing

double f(int x, int y) {
  if (y == 0) {
    if (x == 0)
      return NaN;
    else if (x > 0)
      return Infinity;
    else
      return -Infinity;
  } else
     return (double)x / y;
}

You can write

f(0, 0) = NaN;
f(x, 0) | x > 0 = Infinity;
        | else  = -Infinity;
f(x, y) = (double)x / y;

---

Hey, C++ supports pattern matching too.

static const int PositiveInfinity = -1;
static const int NegativeInfinity = -2;
static const int NaN = -3;

template <int x, int y> struct Divide {
  enum { value = x / y };
};
template <bool x_gt_0> struct aux { enum { value = PositiveInfinity }; };
template <> struct aux<false> { enum { value = NegativeInfinity }; };
template <int x> struct Divide<x, 0> {
  enum { value = aux<(x>0)>::value };
};
template <> struct Divide<0, 0> {
  enum { value = NaN };
};

#include <cstdio>

int main () {
    printf("%d %d %d %d\n", Divide<7,2>::value, Divide<1,0>::value, Divide<0,0>::value, Divide<-1,0>::value);
    return 0;
};

Answer 4

You should start with the Wikipedia page that gives a pretty good explanation. Then, read the relevant chapter of the Haskell wikibook.

This is a nice definition from the above wikibook:

So pattern matching is a way of assigning names to things (or binding those names to those things), and possibly breaking down expressions into subexpressions at the same time (as we did with the list in the definition of map).

Answer 5

Pattern matching is sort of like overloaded methods on steroids. The simplest case would be the same roughly the same as what you seen in java, arguments are a list of types with names. The correct method to call is based on the arguments passed in, and it doubles as an assignment of those arguments to the parameter name.

Patterns just go a step further, and can destructure the arguments passed in even further. It can also potentially use guards to actually match based on the value of the argument. To demonstrate, I'll pretend like JavaScript had pattern matching.

function foo(a,b,c){} //no pattern matching, just a list of arguments

function foo2([a],{prop1:d,prop2:e}, 35){} //invented pattern matching in JavaScript

In foo2, it expects a to be an array, it breaks apart the second argument, expecting an object with two props (prop1,prop2) and assigns the values of those properties to variables d and e, and then expects the third argument to be 35.

Unlike in JavaScript, languages with pattern matching usually allow multiple functions with the same name, but different patterns. In this way it is like method overloading. I'll give an example in erlang:

fibo(0) -> 0 ;
fibo(1) -> 1 ;
fibo(N) when N > 0 -> fibo(N-1) + fibo(N-2) .

Blur your eyes a little and you can imagine this in javascript. Something like this maybe:

function fibo(0){return 0;}
function fibo(1){return 1;}
function fibo(N) when N > 0 {return fibo(N-1) + fibo(N-2);}

Point being that when you call fibo, the implementation it uses is based on the arguments, but where Java is limited to types as the only means of overloading, pattern matching can do more.

Beyond function overloading as shown here, the same principle can be applied other places, such as case statements or destructuring assingments. JavaScript even has this in 1.7.

Answer 6

Here is a really short example that shows pattern matching usefulness:

Let's say you want to sort up an element in a list:

["Venice","Paris","New York","Amsterdam"] 

to (I've sorted up "New York")

["Venice","New York","Paris","Amsterdam"] 

in an more imperative language you would write:

function up(city, cities){  
    for(var i = 0; i < cities.length; i++){
        if(cities[i] === city && i > 0){
            var prev = cities[i-1];
            cities[i-1] = city;
            cities[i] = prev;
        }
    }
    return cities;
}

In a functional language you would instead write:

let up list value =  
    match list with
        | [] -> []
        | previous::current::tail when current = value ->  current::previous::tail
        | current::tail -> current::(up tail value)

As you can see the pattern matched solution has less noise, you can clearly see what are the different cases and how easy it's to travel and de-structure our list.

I've written a more detailed blog post about it here.