[erlang-questions] illegal guard expression for IF illegal guard expression for "if"

[CGS]

Just to make it clearer:

The second condition is equivalent with the expression: "if the value of 
random:uniform() is greater or equal to 0.5 then report 'bad'". In this 
case, if you entered with value 0.4 in the first branch and modified it 
to 0.7 in the first branch, the second branch should be executed as 
well. That is against the if statement purpose which should report only 
one branch at the time as valid. Therefore, Erlang requires for the 
compared values to be constant during the if statement processing.

CGS



On 12/02/2011 11:06 AM, CGS wrote:
> If statement is not a block statement (to fix the variables values at 
> the entrance of the statement) in Erlang. That means, if an 
> uniform:random() value (say, 0.4) is used for checking the first 
> branch condition and the value is changed within the branch (say, 
> 0.7), then you enter a paradox related to if the function should be 
> considered for the first or the second branch. To avoid this, Erlang 
> requires an assurance that the compared values do not change while 
> processing the if statement.
>
> CGS
>
>
>
> On 12/02/2011 10:56 AM, Barco You wrote:
>> Hi CGS,
>>
>> I can't understand your statement --- " if in the first branch you 
>> use again random:uniform(), the second branch condition can report an 
>> inaccurate result."  Could you please make it clearer? Thanks!
>>
>> Hi Others,
>>
>> Why functions with side effect can not be in the guard expressions?
>>
>>
>> Thank you!
>> Barco
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 5:50 PM, CGS <cgsmcmlxxv@REDACTED 
>> <mailto:cgsmcmlxxv@REDACTED>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     To put in simple words for better understanding, you can have
>>     only constant variables withing the guard expression. That means,
>>     in your case, if in the first branch you use again
>>     random:uniform(), the second branch condition can report an
>>     inaccurate result.
>>
>>     Alternatively, you can use case statement:
>>
>>     case (random:uniform()<0.5) of
>>          true -> good;
>>          false -> bad
>>     end
>>
>>     I hope this answer will help you.
>>
>>     CGS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 12/02/2011 10:30 AM, Barco You wrote:
>>>     Why does the following expression got "illegal guard expression"
>>>     when compiling:
>>>     X = 0.5,
>>>     if
>>>         random:uniform() < X ->      %error reported for this line
>>>                good;
>>>         true ->
>>>                bad
>>>     end.
>>>
>>>     But if I change it to following expression, it's ok:
>>>     X = 0.5,
>>>     Ran = random:uniform(),
>>>     if
>>>         Ran < X ->
>>>                good;
>>>         true ->
>>>                bad
>>>     end.
>>>
>>>     BRs,
>>>     Barco
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     erlang-questions mailing list
>>>     erlang-questions@REDACTED  <mailto:erlang-questions@REDACTED>
>>>     http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     erlang-questions mailing list
>>     erlang-questions@REDACTED <mailto:erlang-questions@REDACTED>
>>     http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20111202/d820c07d/attachment.htm>