[erlang-questions] nand problem
Mon Jan 26 18:36:57 CET 2015
Hugo Mills schreef op 26-1-2015 om 18:26:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 05:21:42PM +0100, Roelof Wobben wrote:
>> b_and(true, true) ->
>> b_and(true, false) ->
>> b_and(false, true) ->
>> b_and(false, false) ->
> You could make this shorter and possibly easier to read with
> b_and(true, true) ->
> b_and(_, _) ->
> i.e. define the (one) special case, and then just say that
> everything else evaluates to false. You can do something similar with
Yes, I could do that .
I thought I have read somewhere that using _ for defensive programming
was nog good practice
but that was on using other on case on the next chapter.
I will change my code.
More information about the erlang-questions