oliveiragahenrique
I’m current learning Elixir by the book Elixir in Action 2nd Edition. On chapter 3 at Stream functions exercises i’ve solved them a bit different from the original repository.
Problem: Get the longest line length of a file
Book resoluiton:
def longest_line_length!(path) do
path
|> Stream.map(&String.replace(&1, "\n", ""))
|> Stream.map(&String.length/1)
|> Enum.max()
end
My resolution:
def longest_line_length!(path) do
File.stream!(path)
|> Stream.map(&String.replace(&1, "\n", ""))
|> Stream.map(&String.length(&1))
|> Enum.max()
end
Is there some fundamental difference between Stream.map(&String.length/1) and Stream.map(&String.length(&1)) ?
Or it is just a style preference?
Personally I think it’s more clear to use &1 even if it’s not necessary. Maybe it is just because I’m still getting used with the language. Any thoughts?
Where Next?
Trending in Questions
Other Trending Topics
Latest on Elixir Forum
Sponsor Spotlight
Supporting innovation across the BEAM ecosystem.
Categories:
Sub Categories:
Forums
Popular Tags
- #ecto
- #liveview
- #troubleshooting
- #learning-elixir
- #library
- #deployment
- #erlang
- #testing
- #genserver
- #mix
- #absinthe
- #remote-other
- #otp
- #plug
- #how-to-question
- #macros
- #postgres
- #elixirconf
- #channels
- #exunit
- #discussion
- #code-sync
- #podcasts
- #javascript
- #onsite
- #dialyzer
- #docker
- #authentication
- #umbrella
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #ecto-query
- #ai
- #elixirconf-us
- #blog-post
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #distillery
- #processes
- #api
- #forms
- #hex
- #security
- #metaprogramming
Our Sponsors
Build Elixir applications with speed and confidence.
Supporting innovation across the BEAM ecosystem.
Catch errors, track performance, monitor hosts and more.
Error tracking, logs, uptime, and Just Enough APM. Built for developers.
Elixir, Erlang & BEAM conferences from Code Sync - join us in 2026!
Master modern tools, write cleaner code, and tackle real-world challenges.
Bringing learning, work and compliance together since 1987.
The deployment platform built for Elixir: PaaS ease, VPS control.
The team behind Membrane, Popcorn, LiveDebugger. Available for hire.
Courses that'll move you from confusion to "Aha, now I get it!"
Showing Posts 6 to 1- Show Best Posts
- Show All (oldest first)
- Show All (newest first)
shanesveller
Besides the points above, if you’re not reordering or transforming arguments before calling the existing function, the
Mod.fun/aritystyle is more succinct to read and write, especially for functions with arity > 1.fun(&1, &2, &3)is repetitive in a way that isn’t productive.Marcus
But something like this will be optimised by the compiler.
For example:
becomes
But
&String.upcase/1should be the preferred form.NobbZ
It’s not that that function is called twice, but it causes two function calls.
Using
&f(&1)needs to first call the anonymous function which calls then the inner function call. Using&f/1creates a more direct “reference” to the target function and therefore removes one level of indirection.oliveiragahenrique
Hmmm… can you explain a bit more? I’m learning yet.
I did not get how the
&String.length(&1)is called twice, why is this so?i-n-g-m-a-r
2 calls vs 1
srowley
I had the same reaction and preference when I first started learning Elixir. There may be some real difference between them that I am not aware of; I just think of it as a style difference.
Over time as I got accustomed to referring to a function as
Module.function/arity, the former syntax (i.e.&String.length/1) became more natural and the latter started to feel redundant/unnecessary.