问题
Reading about F# today and I'm not clear on one thing:
From: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd233200.aspx
you need only one element of the tuple, the wildcard character (the underscore) can be used to avoid creating a new name for a variable that you do not need
let (a, _) = (1, 2)
I can't think of a time that I've been in this situation. Why would you avoid creating a variable name?
回答1:
Interesting question. There are many trade-offs involved here.
Your comparisons have been with the Ruby programming language so perhaps the first trade-off you should consider is static typing. If you use the pattern x, _, _ then F# knows you are referring to the first element of a triple of exactly three elements and will enforce this constraint at compile time. Ruby cannot. F# also checks patterns for exhaustiveness and redundancy. Again, Ruby cannot.
Your comparisons have also used only flat patterns. Consider the patterns _, (x, _) or x, None | _, Some x or [] | [_] and so on. These are not so easily translated.
Finally, I'd mention that Standard ML is a programming language related to F# and it does provide operators called #1 etc. to extract the first element of a tuple with an arbitrary number of elements (see here) so this idea was implemented and discarded decades ago. I believe this is because SML's #n notation culminates in incomprehensible error messages within the constraints of the type system. For example, a function that uses #n is not making it clear what the arity of the tuple is but functions cannot be generic over tuple arity so this must result in an error message saying that you must give more type information but many users found that confusing. With the CAML/OCaml/F# approach there is no such confusion.
回答2:
Because you don't need the value. I use this often. It documents the fact that a value is unused and saves naming variables unused, dummy, etc. Great feature if you ask me.
回答3:
The let-binding you've given is an example of a language facility called pattern matching, which can be used to destructure many types, not just tuples. In pattern matches, underscores are the idiomatic way to express that you won't refer to a value.
Directly accessing the elements of a tuple can be more concise, but it's less general. Pattern matching allows you to look at the structure of some data and dispatch to an approprate handling case.
match x with
| (x, _, 20) -> x
| (_, y, _) -> y
This pattern match will return the first item in x only if the third element is 20. Otherwise it returns the second element. Once you get beyond trivial cases, the underscores are an important readability aid. Compare the above with:
match x with
| (x, y, 20) -> x
| (x, y, z) -> y
In the first code sample, it's much easier to tell which bindings you care about in the pattern.
回答4:
Sometimes a method will return multiple values but the code you're writing is only interested in a select few (or one) of them. You can use multiple underscores to essentially ignore the values you don't need, rather than having a bunch of variables hanging around in local scope.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14105422/fs-underscore-why-not-just-create-a-variable-name