[erlang-questions] How about a new warning? Was: Re: trouble with erlang or erlang is a ghetto
Fri Aug 5 04:22:14 CEST 2011
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 11:47:13PM +0200, Richard Carlsson wrote:
>> According to the Barklund spec (page 62), it said that "a compiler
>> must only accept a program if for any evaluation order, there will
>> not be an applied occurrence of an unbound variable".
>> "For example, in a context where X is unbound, the expression (X=8) +
>> X should give a compile-time error."
>> (And it does, too. I checked).
Thanks for pointing that out. I'd have missed that one.
> An interesting twist on the example (X=8) + X is that if *both* arguments
> create a binding of the same variable, as in:
> (X=8) + (X=8)
> then Erlang will first evaluate the subexpressions, then *check* that the
> results match so that a single agreed value of X can be exported out from
> the whole expression, and only in that case will it call + on the results.
> You can experiment with the following to see what I mean:
The difference between the two cases seems a bit weird to me. I would
have expected that the meaning of a call f(Expr1, Expr2) (I'll write
it as |f(Expr1, Expr2)|) where the Expr are other Erlang expressions
should be exactly the same as
|T1 = Expr1|,
|T2 = Expr2|,
where the T are new variables and |.| is applied recursively.
In this case, |(X = 8) + X| means X = 8, T1 = X, T2 = X, T1 + T2,
which is okay, and |X + (X = 8)| means T1 = X, X = 8, T2 = X, T1 + T2,
which is a compile-time error.
While I appreciate the intent of Barklund's rule above, I don't think
it plays well with Erlang's explicit left-to-right order of
Erlang really could do with a concise, agreed, current specification,
More information about the erlang-questions