[erlang-questions] nand problem

[Roelof Wobben]

Hugo Mills schreef op 26-1-2015 om 18:26:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 05:21:42PM +0100, Roelof Wobben wrote:
> [snip]
>> b_and(true, true) ->
>>    true;
>>
>> b_and(true, false) ->
>>    false;
>>
>> b_and(false, true) ->
>>    false;
>>
>> b_and(false, false) ->
>>    false.
>     You could make this shorter and possibly easier to read with
>
> b_and(true, true) ->
>      true;
> b_and(_, _) ->
>      false.
>
>     i.e. define the (one) special case, and then just say that
> everything else evaluates to false. You can do something similar with
> b_or.
>
>     Hugo.
>

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.

Roelof