[erlang-questions] Is the function call always pass by value?

[Robert Virding]

Yes, basically, everything, both arguments and return values, is passed "by reference". But, as you say, this is not noticeable as you can't change a value.

Robert

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Motiejus Jakštys" <desired.mta@REDACTED>
> To: "饕餮" <249505968@REDACTED>
> Cc: "erlang-questions" <erlang-questions@REDACTED>
> Sent: Saturday, 9 March, 2013 10:40:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] Is the function call always pass by value?
> 
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 10:16 AM, 饕餮 <249505968@REDACTED> wrote:
> > I have do a test about the function call.
> > There are some strange thing happen when I use function call to
> > pass a
> > tuple.
> > The runtime won't change whatever the tuple scale size change(still
> > smaller
> > than 10k atom in it).
> >
> > So I wonder if the function call always pass value?
> 
> 
> In Erlang it does not matter, because you cannot modify the tuple.
> AND
> have no pointers. Hence I am pretty sure it does not make a
> difference
> because pointer is passed to the stack.
> 
> > And in I my project there is a efficiency bottleneck.
> > There is some function loop with passing some large record.
> > simply like this
> > %=============================
> > dot_write_func_dup(N) ->
> > X = #test{},
> > statistics(runtime),
> > dot_func_dup(N,X),
> > {_,TotalRunTime}=statistics(runtime),
> > io:format("totalruntime:~w~n",[TotalRunTime]).
> > %=============================
> > dot_func_dup(N,X) when N > 0 ->
> > I = X#test{r500 = n},
> > J = I#test{r501 = m},
> > dot_func_dup(N -1 ,X);
> > dot_func_dup(0,X) ->
> > I = X#test{r500 = n},
> > J = I#test{r501 = m}.
> > %=============================
> 
> You are constructing a record (`J`) and then immediately discarding
> it. Is this for purpose? You should get "unused variable `J`" warning
> while compiling the module. Perhaps you meant J instead of X in
>     do_func_dup(N-1, X) ?
> 
> > It seems very slow with the loop.
> Numbers would be really good addition to this statement: small record
> vs large record.
> 
> > And we attempt to change the record loop to process dictionary.
> > It's worthy to change it?
> 
> Anyway, changing a value in the record (tuple) requires to copy the
> whole record (tuple)*. So yes, it will be slow. And process
> dictionary
> will be more efficient. And think about ETS.
> 
> [*]: there are exceptions. See
> http://www.erlang.org/doc/efficiency_guide/commoncaveats.html section
> "3.4  setelement/3".
> 
> --
> Motiejus Jakštys
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>