[erlang-questions] Reading, Learning, Confused

[Alpár Jüttner]

What you are writing here is quite irrelevant to the quoted text, as
Section 6.14 deals with orelse/andelse, it has nothing to do with ,
and ;.

On the other hand it is not true that the evaluation of guards are
always short-circuited, in case of 'or' and 'and' both sides are always
evaluated. 

So, I still think that the quoted part of the reference manual is
erroneous and confusing.

Best regards,
Alpar

On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 12:11 -0400, Edwin Fine wrote:
> I interpret those words as follows:
> 
> As of Erlang 5.5/OTP R11B, short-circuit boolean expressions are
> allowed in guards. Please note that evaluation is always
> short-circuited in guards.
> This is because guard tests are known to be free of side effects. If a
> guard condition is free of side-effects, that means that in a sequence
> of guards, it is guaranteed that leaving out the evaluation of one or
> more guards will not change the state of the program. For example,
> let's say that user-defined functions were allowed in guards.
> 
> f(X) -> put(x, X), true.
> g() -> put(x, true), put(y,"g() was called"), true.
> h() -> get(x).
> test(X) when f(X), g(), h() ->  ok. % Will not compile - illegal
> Erlang
> 
> What will get(x) and get(y) return after test(X) is run? Will it make
> a difference to the result if guards are not short-circuited?
> 
> Non-short-circuited guards:
> test(true): f(true) sets x to true, g() sets x to true, y to the
> string. End result: x is true, y is "g() was called".
> test(false): f(false) sets x to false, g() sets x to true. End result:
> x is true, y is "g() was called".
> 
> Short-circuited guards with side-effects:
> test(true): f(true) sets x to true, g() sets x to true, y to the
> string. End result: x is true, y is "g() was called".
> test(false): f(false) sets x to false, g() is not evaluated. End
> result: x is false, y is undefined.
> 
> So skipping a guard test if it has a side effect can change the state
> of the whole program, which would make short-circuit evaluation
> impossible. But because no guard tests can have side-effects, the
> state of the program cannot be changed if one or more guard tests are
> not evaluated.
> 
> Hope this makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Alpár Jüttner <alpar@REDACTED>
> wrote:
>         >         As of Erlang 5.5/OTP R11B, short-circuit boolean
>         expressions are
>         >         allowed in guards. In guards, however, evaluation is
>         always
>         >         short-circuited since guard tests are known to be
>         free of side
>         >         effects.
>         >         (Section 6.14, Short-Circuit Boolean Expressions)
>         >
>         > Something is wrong here, isn;t it?
>         
>         
>         I mean
>         
>              * What does the word "however" mean here? Does it mean
>         that if
>                they are not in a guard, orelse/andelse might be non
>                short-circuited?
>              * How does the freedom from side effects are related to
>         the
>                short-circuited evaluation?
>         
>         Regards,
>         Alpar
>         
>         
>         >
>         > Regards,
>         > Alpar
>         >
>         > On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 06:50 -0700, Lev Walkin wrote:
>         > > Sean Allen wrote:
>         > > > by a small bit of example code in Programming Erlang
>         related to guards
>         > > > and short circuit booleans:
>         > > >
>         > > >   f(X) when (X == 0) or (1/X > 2) ->
>         > > >      ...
>         > > >
>         > > > g(X) when (X == 0) orelse ( 1/X > 2) ->
>         > > >     ...
>         > > >
>         > > > The guard in f(X) fails when X is zero but succeeds in
>         g(X)
>         > > >
>         > > > Can someone explain why?
>         > >
>         > >
>         > > Sean,
>         > >
>         > > The thing is, "or" does not short-circuit evaluation when
>         left side
>         > > succeeds, whereas "orelse" does. Same short-circuit logic
>         is
>         > > behind the differences between "and" and "andalso".
>         > >
>         > > Actually, the very book you read explains these
>         differences and warns
>         > > about caveats a couple pages later (or earlier). Don't
>         stop reading.
>         > >
>         >
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > erlang-questions mailing list
>         > erlang-questions@REDACTED
>         > http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         erlang-questions mailing list
>         erlang-questions@REDACTED
>         http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate,
> contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and
> unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the
> discomfort of thought.
> John F. Kennedy 35th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 - 1963)