[erlang-questions] Lack of warning for overlapping clauses with

Tony Rogvall <>
Tue Jul 20 13:37:45 CEST 2010

```I also think that case analysis could be improved, but I guess you are aware of that
the general problem is a hard nut. Just look at this very academic example ;-)

f(1,1), f(1,2), f(1,3) are actually overlaps, can you see why? ;-)
If there was a theorem prover built in to the compiler it may prove that, and warn about the overlap.
But how long time do you want for the compiler to complete?

----------
-define(p(Pi,Hj), ((P =:= (Pi)) and (H =:= (Hj)))).
-define(pi(Pi), (?p(Pi,0) or ?p(Pi,1) or ?p(Pi,2))).
-define(hi(Hi),
(not (?p(0,Hi) and ?p(1,Hi)) and
not (?p(0,Hi) and ?p(2,Hi)) and
not (?p(0,Hi) and ?p(3,Hi)) and
not (?p(1,Hi) and ?p(2,Hi)) and
not (?p(1,Hi) and ?p(3,Hi)) and
not (?p(2,Hi) and ?p(3,Hi)))).

f(P,H)
when P>=0, P =< 3, H >=0, H =< 2,
not (?pi(0) and ?pi(1) and ?pi(2) and ?pi(3) and
?hi(0) and ?hi(1) and ?hi(2)) ->
1;
f(1,1) -> 2;
f(1,2) -> 3;
f(1,3) -> 4;
f(_P,_H) ->
------------

/Tony

On 20 jul 2010, at 11.30, Torben Hoffmann wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:03, Kostis Sagonas <> wrote:
>
>> Torben Hoffmann wrote:
>>
>>> I am afraid that Bernard is right - there is no difference... neither erlc
>>> or Dialyzer picks it up.
>>>
>>> I would like to hear from the OTP team and/or the Dialyzer team to
>>> understand what is cooking here.
>>>
>>
>> There is not much to say here, nor anything fishy is cooking. It's just
>> that or's/orelse's in guards are not so common in their proper treatment is
>> not so easy.
>>
> That was my fear/expectation - as Joe once said "It is easy to get the
> typing right in 98% of the cases and then you'll have to fight hard to get
> the last 2%"
>
>
>>
>> Neither erlc not dialyzer ever promised that it will generate all possible
>> warnings. In fact, as far as dialyzer is concerned the only thing that was
>> promised is that it will not generate a false warning.
>>
> That is fair enough - I was just surprised that this one got through, but
> the handling of or in a guard is going to create some nasty scenarios.
>
>
>>
>> Now, having written that, thanks for your mail because it gives us a
>> concrete test case to improve erlc and/or dialyzer.
>>
> Great - this reinforces my belief in sharing experiences!
>
> Cheers,
> Torben
>
>
>>
>> Kostis
>>
>
>
>
> --