[erlang-questions] scope of variables
Mon Sep 4 13:15:09 CEST 2006
Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> On 9/4/06, Richard Carlsson <> wrote:
>> and perhaps define macros that use such lambdas:
>> -define(let(X, Y, Z), ((fun (X)-> Z end)(Y))).
> Is it really that simple? This doesn't make for hygienic macros, and
> this will fail with a badmatch:
> foo() ->
> A = 2,
> ?let(X, 3, begin A=1, X+A end).
Yes, but that is not so strange. The macro does not create a completely
blank scope (it would be pretty useless if you could not import any
existing bindings). If you rewrite your example like this, there
is no problem:
A = 2,
?LET(A, 1, ?LET(X, 3, X+A)).
(which returns 4, not 5).
So, how is that not hygienic?
> Oh, so even anonymous funs can be inlined? That's interesting!
Yes, the inliner does not really see a difference between normal
functions and anonymous funs. In both cases, it's just a functional
value bound to a name, and both can be inlined equally well.
The Core Erlang code produced for the function foo() above,
when using -compile(inline), is simply:
'foo'/0 = fun () -> 4
(This is Core Erlang syntax for "foo() -> 4" - it does not
mean that a fun-object will be created.)
More information about the erlang-questions