# 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:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Evey](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/evey/32/214967_2.png) [@Evey](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Evey)\
**Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 3:15pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/pattern-matching-for-macros/21583/3 "2019-03-07T15:15:48Z")

</div>

> [@New syntax for multi-line macrocalls](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/new-syntax-for-multi-line-macrocalls/21571/5):
>
> 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.

No worries! I think good pattern matching is important too, but I see no reason why this suggestion (which is a change to the parser) would in any way negatively influence the adoption of `MacroTools` or a similar package. 😉

---

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