# Pattern matching for macros

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/pattern-matching-for-macros/21583>\
**Category:** Internals & Design\
**Created:** [March 7, 2019, 3:15pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/pattern-matching-for-macros/21583 "2019-03-07T15:15:48Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ExpandingMan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/expandingman/32/866_2.png) [@ExpandingMan](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ExpandingMan)\
**Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 3:02pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/pattern-matching-for-macros/21583/2 "2019-03-07T15:02:39Z")

</div>

> [@New syntax for multi-line macrocalls](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/new-syntax-for-multi-line-macrocalls/21571/4):
>
> Actually, I personally did not think of this suggestion as being related to pattern matching, but instead being all about the aesthetics; having a clean way to split arguments to a macro over several lines. That it shares some features with pattern matching is to me tangential

Sorry, I did not mean to try to derail the thread. It seems to me that if you had good pattern matching on blocks, it would obviate the need for a special macro syntax on blocks, which was why I brought it up.

I think it’s a good suggestion, but I would strongly prefer having good pattern matching available to case-by-case special syntax.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/pattern-matching-for-macros/21583)._