eeff

eeff

About ambiguity introduced in function default arguments

Hi, I am learning Elixir and recently reading the Supervisor source code, and came accross start_link/2 and start_link/3:

# https://github.com/elixir-lang/elixir/blob/v1.20.1/lib/elixir/lib/supervisor.ex#L733
def start_link(children, options) when is_list(children) do

# https://github.com/elixir-lang/elixir/blob/v1.20.1/lib/elixir/lib/supervisor.ex#L976
def start_link(module, init_arg, options \\ []) when is_list(options)

As far as I understand, the default argument in def start_link(module, init_arg, options \\ []) should cause another start_link/2 to be defined and should result in ambiguity ? Does guard helps the compiler reduce ambiguity and thus the compiler treats it as a second clause for start_link/2 ? If so, the two clauses does not need to be grouped together ?

I tried the following:

defmodule A do
  def f(a), do: "f(#{inspect(a)})"

  def f(a, b \\ []) when is_list(b), do: "f(#{inspect(a)}, #{inspect(b)})"
end

and result in a warning:

➜  /tmp iex test.ex
Erlang/OTP 27 [erts-15.2] [source] [64-bit] [smp:4:4] [ds:4:4:10] [async-threads:1] [jit:ns]

    warning: this clause for f/1 cannot match because a previous clause at line 2 always matches
    │
  4 │   def f(a, b \\ []) when is_list(b), do: "f(#{inspect(a)}, #{inspect(b)})"
    │       ~
    │
    └─ test.ex:4:7

Interactive Elixir (1.19.0-dev) - press Ctrl+C to exit (type h() ENTER for help)

But if I changed the order of the def’s:

defmodule A do
  def f(a, b \\ []) when is_list(b), do: "f(#{inspect(a)}, #{inspect(b)})"

  def f(a), do: "f(#{inspect(a)})"
end

it results in an error:

➜  /tmp iex test.ex
Erlang/OTP 27 [erts-15.2] [source] [64-bit] [smp:4:4] [ds:4:4:10] [async-threads:1] [jit:ns]

    error: def f/1 conflicts with defaults from f/2
    │
  4 │   def f(a), do: "f(#{inspect(a)})"
    │       ^
    │
    └─ test.ex:4:7: A.f/1

** (CompileError) test.ex: cannot compile module A (errors have been logged)
    test.ex:4: (module)

Can anybody point me to related documentation about this behavior difference ?

Marked As Solved

mudasobwa

mudasobwa

Creator of Cure

Sidenote: Please upgrade the toolchain to Elixir1.20.1 / OTP29.

The compiler explicitly handles \\ operator because Erlang does not have default argument values. It does not allow any redeclaration after \\ has been expanded. Look-behind, though, would have a ton of redundant tracking involved, decreasing performance, that’s why it does not blow up immediately.

The error you observe is raised by first-pass compiler, meeting the \\ default parameters within the function redeclaration.

The warning you observe if you swap clauses is the second-pass compiler, simply warning you about unreachable clause, it has nothing to do with \\ because there is no look-behind.

Also Liked

mudasobwa

mudasobwa

Creator of Cure

Here is the documentation:

If a function with default values has multiple clauses, it is required to create a function head (a function definition without a body) for declaring defaults — Modules and functions — Elixir v1.20.2

Just don’t try to hack the proposed syntax. Supervisor also ditched this cludge, that’s why I suggested to use the latest versions of the toolchain.

odelbos

odelbos

You need to do it like this:

defmodule A do
  def f(a, b \\ [])

  def f(a, []), do: "f(#{inspect(a)})"
  def f(a, b) when is_list(b), do: "f(#{inspect(a)}, #{inspect(b)})"
end

IO.puts A.f(5)
# Output --> f(5)

IO.puts A.f(5, [:one, :two])
# Output --> f(5, [:one, :two])
odelbos

odelbos

It’s because of the declarative f/1 order.
When we write:

def f(a, b \\ [])

I fact the compiler will expand it in two functions:

def f(a), do: f(a, [])  # <-- This is not a declarative f/1 it's the default-argument of f/2
def f(a, b) do: ...

So in the first case

defmodule A do
  def f(a), do: "f(#{inspect(a)})"     # <--- declarative f/1

  def f(a, b \\ []) when is_list(b), do: ...   # <--- will be expanded by the compiler
end

You will have two f/1 but with the declarative f/1 in first position (top-bottom) will match all clauses. So the compiler emit a warning for the unreachable expanded f/1 that handle the default-argument case of f/2.

In the second case:

defmodule A do
  def f(a, b \\ []) when is_list(b), do ...   # <--- will be expanded by the compiler
  def f(a), do: "f(#{inspect(a)})"     # <--- declarative f/1
end

The declarative f/1 is after the expanded f/1 but from the compiler’s perspective, the expanded f/1 is not a declarative f/1 function it’s the mechanism that handle the default-argument of the f/2 function. So when later the compiler encounter the declarative f/1 which is in conflict with the auto-generated f/1 it emit a compilation error.

Where Next?

Popular in Questions Top

chokchit
** (DBConnection.ConnectionError) connection not available and request was dropped from queue after 2733ms. You can configure how long re...
New
vertexbuffer
Hello, can anybody help here..? I have a list of players and I what to delete an element, but every for loop the list is reverting to ori...
New
WestKeys
Currently suffering from paralysis by [HTTP client] analysis. This is rather unusual in Elixirland as there tends to be consensus on the ...
New
electic
Hi, I am new to Elixir. I am trying to use the DateTime component to insert a date into MySQL however the there seems to be no way to fo...
New
ycv005
I have followed this StackOverflow post to install the specific version of Erlang. And When I am running mix ecto.setup then getting fol...
New
Emily
I have VueJS GUIs with the project generated using Webpack. I have Elixir modules that will need to be used by the VueJS GUIs. I forese...
New
aalberti333
As the title describes, I’m trying to run Enum.map() over a list of key/value pairs, where the value is a map. My data looks like this: ...
New
nsuchy
Hi. I’ve noticed that Windows Powershell has it’s own IEX command and you cannot access Elixir’s IEX due to the conflict. This isn’t a cr...
New
dotdotdotPaul
Okay, I’m having a heck of a time trying to figure out how to best handle the validation of belongs_to associations in Ecto. I’m sure I’...
New
jaysoifer
Is there a way to rollback a specific migration and only that one (“skipping” all the other ones)? Would mix ecto.rollback -v 200809061...
New

Other popular topics Top

aadeshere1
I have a another noob question about loop. Since elixir is immutable, while loop is not directly possible. total = 10 while total != 0 ...
New
marius95
Hello everyone, I try to use an Javascript Event Handler in my root.html.leex file. Therefore I created a function in the app.js file: ...
New
Darmani72
If I have a post route which an argument: post /my_post_route/:my_param1, MyController.my_post_handler How would get the post params ...
New
Nvim
Anybody knows a comprehensive comparison of Django and Phoenix, thanks for the help. Where are they similar? Where do they differ the m...
New
gshaw
What is the idiomatic way of matching for not nil in Elixir? E.g., First way: defp halt_if_not_signed_in(conn, signed_in_account) when...
New
josevalim
Hi everyone, One of the features added to Elixir early on to help integration with Erlang code was the idea of overridable function defi...
New
SoCreat
i’m a new one to elixir which editor can i use vs code? or atom? Thanks! :smiley:
New
boundedvariable
I am going through the kafka architecture. All the features what the kafka is providing are already in Erlang. I would like hear your opi...
New
komlanvi
Hi everyone, I was playing with phoenix liveView but I run into an issue. I have a form and want to validate each input text when the te...
New
JakeBecker
TL;DR: I’ve just released an implementation of Microsoft’s IDE-independent Language Server Protocol for Elixir. It adds language support ...
1144 54250 245
New

We're in Beta

About us Mission Statement