[erlang-questions] chained functions

[Jakob Praher]

As I tried out the code below I learned that tuples of module and function atoms evalute to functions, not atoms by themselves.
If one can apply arguments to a tuple, why not to an atom if this would be denote a function in the current environment? 

{R, V} = apply_each([{m1,z},{m2,y},{m3,x}], Arg).
if R = ok -> ...

Thanks,
Jakob


Am Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2012 14:29 CET, "Jakob Praher" <jakob@REDACTED> schrieb: 
 
> 
> One could also compose a sequence of functions much like in combinator parsing, and fail at the first event returning the error status, otherwise continue to call apply the functions to the result.
> 
> apply_each([F|FS],X) -> 
>       {S, V} = F(X), 
>       if S = error  -> 
>             {S, V}
>          S = ok -> 
>             apply_each(FS, V);
>       end
>       .
> 
> {R, V} = apply_each([z,y,x], Arg).
> if R = ok -> ...
> 
> I have not much practice in Erlang (though I have some practice in Prolog), so this might not be 100 % correct.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jakob
> 
> Am Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2012 13:16 CET, Joe Armstrong <erlang@REDACTED> schrieb: 
>  
> > I think you are asking the wrong question. If a function returns
> > {ok,Val} | {error,Reason}
> > then I think to myself "the caller of this function expects things to
> > go wrong and is
> > committed to handling *both* return values.
> > 
> > So they would *never* write w(x(y(z(....))) because this does not cater for both
> > return values.
> > 
> > With the "let it crash" philosophy one would make w,x,y, .. return a
> > value OR call exit(...).
> > With this convention things do nest in the "happy" case without using
> > a staircase.
> > 
> > At the top level try or catch is used to catch the error.
> > 
> > Alternatively you could say
> > 
> >   ok({ok,X}) -> X;
> >   ok{error,E}) -> exit(E).
> > 
> > and then
> > 
> >    w(ok(x(ok(y(ok(z(X))))))
> > 
> > Not pretty but it does the job
> > 
> > /Joe
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Reynaldo Baquerizo
> > <reynaldomic@REDACTED> wrote:
> > >
> > > A friend of mine asked:
> > >
> > > ##
> > > If you have functions that return {ok, Result} | {error, Reason}
> > > how do you chained them? So that you have:
> > >
> > > w(x(y(z(...))))
> > >
> > > without building a staircasing. Something that would be done in Haskell
> > > with monads.
> > > ##
> > >
> > > I would probably go for:
> > >
> > > x({ok, Value}) ->
> > >  NewValue = <do something with Value>,
> > >  {ok, NewValue};
> > > x({error, Reason}) ->
> > >  {error, Reason}.
> > >
> > > in each function
> > >
> > > which brings me other question, when do you tag return values?
> > >
> > > I tend to only use tagged return values with impure functions, were an
> > > error is more likely due to side effects.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Reynaldo
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > erlang-questions mailing list
> > > erlang-questions@REDACTED
> > > http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> > _______________________________________________
> > erlang-questions mailing list
> > erlang-questions@REDACTED
> > http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions