[erlang-questions] Reassigning variables

[mats cronqvist]

Matthew Dempsky <matthew@REDACTED> writes:

> I like pattern matching in the majority of cases, but I find I write
> enough code where I need to incrementally update a data structure, and
> maintaining that code is a pain when I have code like:
>
>   X = foo(),
>   X1 = bar(X),
>   X2 = xyzzy(X1),
>   blah(X2).
>
> and later want to change it to:
>
>   X = foo(),
>   X1 = whee(X),
>   X2 = bar(X1),
>   X3 = xyzzy(X2),
>   blah(X3).

  Apologies in advance for calling you a noob.
  But in my experience, all beginners start off writing code like the above.
  Whereas seasoned Erlangers produce something more like this;

x() ->
  blah_it(xyzzy(make_whee(foo()))).

make_whee(X) -> 
  case whee(X) of
    {A,B} ->  bar(A);
    {A,B,C}-> bar(A)
  end.

blah_it(X) when is_atom(X) -> blah(X);
blah_it(X) when is_list(X) -> blah(list_to_atom(X)).


  I've added some stuff to your example to make it less trivial, but
  it's basically the same.

  So I think the X1 = f(X), X2 = f(X1) anti-pattern is not a weakness
  of the language; it's Erlang's way of telling you that you should
  use more functions.

  mats