[erlang-questions] Must and May convention

[Michał Muskała]

On 28 Sep 2017, 21:04 +0200, Vans S <vans_163@REDACTED>, wrote:

>
> I really like the ideas behind this but working with the yrl seems to be an undocumented dark art, and very time consuming to
> learn.  There is so many things I would like to be able to do and to have the code compile to the same/functionally similar abstract form.
>
> my_fun(atom, Map=#{bitfield_set=> _}) ->
>         Value = maps:get(key, Map),
>         Value2 = maps:get(key2, Map, undefined),
>         Value3 = maps:get(key4, maps:get(key3, Map, #{}), undefined),
>         List = io:format("the atom as a binary is ~p ~p", [atom, Value]),
>         unicode:characters_to_binary(List).
>
>     VS
>
> fun my_fun(atom, Map=#{bitfield_set}) ->
>     Value = Map[key]
>     Value2 = Map[key2, undefined]
>     Value3 = Map[key3][key4]
>     "the atom as a binary is #{atom} #{Value}"
> end
>

The initial map proposal included a syntax for key access:

    Map#{Key}

But it was never actually implemented.

Michał.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20170928/f9126cb6/attachment.htm>