''illegal pattern'' when using records in case statement
Thu Feb 6 12:49:07 CET 2003
> X-Authentication-Warning: cbe1066.al.sw.ericsson.se: etxuwig owned process
> Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 12:27:09 +0100 (MET)
> From: Ulf Wiger <>
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Richard Carlsson wrote:
> >To be more formalistic about why that can't be made into a
> >pattern: patterns describe the static skeleton of the data
> >(counting pre-bound variables as static), and a pattern
> >like this one would not be static.
> Why wouldn't it be, if it's an intuitive way to express the
> pattern? All suggested alternatives are less intuitive,
> Isn't this really an artifact of the syntactic expansion of
> record expressions?
> One could imagine that the compiler (knowing the size of the
> prswDomain record) generate code like this:
> dpid_to_if(Dp, Domain) ->
> __working_dp = Domain#prswDomain.working_dp,
> __protection_if = Domain#prswDomain.protection_if,
> case Dp of
> __working_dp ->
> __protection_if ->
> Why whould that not be valid?
this is the workaround i refered to in my question. i am using it.
please accept my apologise to all who have made suggestions, but all
other suggestions are less intuitive, IMHO.
More information about the erlang-questions