[erlang-questions] function clauses with maps (18.3)

[Björn-Egil Dahlberg]

OTP 20.0 at the earliest. However, no definitive decision has been made
about when or even if.

2016-03-30 22:59 GMT+02:00 Luis Azedo <luis.azedo@REDACTED>:

> Thanks for the reply.
>
> so in the future in should work, right ? do you know which version/release
> we should wait before testing this ?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Björn-Egil Dahlberg <
> wallentin.dahlberg@REDACTED> wrote:
>
>> This is a current limitation with maps and bitsyntax. Variables has to be
>> bound before being used as an expression in a pattern.
>>
>> 2016-03-30 22:01 GMT+02:00 Luis Azedo <luis.azedo@REDACTED>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> this doesn't compile in 18.3. is it supposed to work with the maps spec
>>> ? maybe in a later release ?
>>>
>>> -spec my_match(atom(), atom(), map()) -> any().
>>> my_match(Classification, CarType, #{my_key := #{ Classification := #{
>>> <<"cars">> := #{ CarType := Map}}}}) ->
>>> ....
>>> variable 'Classification' is unbound
>>> variable 'CarType' is unbound
>>>
>>>
>>> this works but we're not taking advantage of function clauses.
>>>
>>> my_match(Classification, CarType, M ) ->
>>>     #{my_key := #{ Classification := #{ <<"cars">> := #{ CarType :=
>>> Map}}}} = M,
>>>     Map.
>>> ....
>>>
>>> TIA
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
>>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20160330/a078cca5/attachment.htm>