blubparadox
Better to use t vs t() for type specifications?
Forgive me, this could be answered somewhere but “t” and “t()” are difficult to get to work in search.
When writing types for your code, especially the module types, is it “better” to use t or t() when writing and using types? I’ve seen both used, with no explanation as to why. If both are conventions, which convention is more used?
Even the built-in types aren’t helpful, I’ve seen String.t and String.t() used in examples.
Trending in Questions
I’m in search of an Elixir library that offers PDF generation capabilities similar to Ruby’s Prawn. While there have been discussions abo...
New
I’m looking to build a personal workflow to quickly deploy web applications written in elixir/phoenix, for local consumption (ie not on t...
New
Using Phoenix.LiveView.TagEngine as an EEx.Engine is deprecated!
To compile HEEx, use Phoenix.LiveView.TagEngine.compile/2 instead.
Sta...
New
Hello !
We want new/edit form pages to POST/PUT to their own URL rather than the resources REST defaults (post /things, put /things/:id)...
New
Before I dive in myself, did anyone successfully sprinkle Hologram into their existing LiveView app?
Looking for hints regarding:
Addi...
New
Hi all, I wanted to ask how the community is dealing with post-release steps.
Today we have Ecto migrations, which make sure that the db...
New
I am using Oban and occasionally, shortly after a deployment, a handful of jobs can fail because of dependency on other parts of the syst...
New
Other Trending Topics
Hey, I’m Jesse and I’m the main contributor behind Dexter, a full-featured, lightning-fast Elixir LSP optimized for large codebases. It s...
New
Beam Bots (or just BB for short) is a framework for building fault-tolerant robotics applications in Elixir using familiar OTP patterns. ...
New
Hello everyone. After busy few months I am happy to announce v0.1.0 of Emerge & Solve.
They are GUI (Emerge) and State management (S...
New
Emily is an Elixir library that runs Nx computations on Apple’s MLX. Install it as the default Nx backend and Nx, defn, Axon, Nx.Serving,...
New
I just stumbled on a newly redesigned elixir-lang.org. :tada: It looks like @Software_Mansion did the work, and I think it is generally a...
New
@hugobarauna and I (Alex Koutmos) have been hard at work on writing a book on Nerves that takes you from simply blinking LEDs to building...
New
Categories:
Sub Categories:
Forums
Popular Tags
- #ecto
- #liveview
- #troubleshooting
- #learning-elixir
- #deployment
- #library
- #erlang
- #testing
- #genserver
- #mix
- #absinthe
- #remote-other
- #otp
- #plug
- #how-to-question
- #macros
- #postgres
- #channels
- #elixirconf
- #exunit
- #discussion
- #code-sync
- #javascript
- #podcasts
- #onsite
- #dialyzer
- #docker
- #authentication
- #umbrella
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #ecto-query
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #blog-post
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #ai
- #elixirconf-us
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #distillery
- #processes
- #api
- #forms
- #metaprogramming
- #performance
- #security










First 4 of 4 Posts
stefanluptak
Isn’t the formatter (running
mix format) convertingtintot()automatically?sodapopcan
It’s really totally up to you, both are correct and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise
But as @stefanluptak says, it you use the formatter it’s decided for you.
blubparadox
My Elixir code has been dynamic up to now, but I’ve been watching DDD videos and other sources that are convincing me to start using types in some places. I didn’t even know a formatter would do that.
I write my code in VS Code with ElixirLS installed. Will it be formatted automatically?
arcanemachine
I think this is one of those ambiguous things that doesn’t have a definite answer (much to my chagrin… I hate having to make meaningless design decisions).
I follow the convention for functions as defined in some of the style guides I’ve come across (here’s one by the Credo folks, and here’s some implicit examples from another style guide), which is: When defining a zero-arity function (or type, in this case), I omit the brackets, and when calling the function (or referencing a type), I always include the brackets.
For example:
Define a typeUse the type in a specFor me, this is the most consistent way to do things, while still matching the spirit of the style guides I’ve seen.
Personally, I dislike the omission of the brackets in zero-arity functions. It’s a function, just give it the damn brackets. But I think it’s a holdover from the early days, when brackets were not required at all.