spammy
Say we have a function:
def func(a, b \\ 0) do
I believe this generates func/1 and func/2. Is it possible to make func/2 private without spinning out a helper/implementation/do_func/2 equivalent?
Trending in Questions
I having some trouble figuring out if I have set myself too strict of standards for my production server. Currently I can handle 75% of r...
New
Documentation
While reading the Scoped Routes section, I noticed that the documentation currently refers to a problem without explainin...
New
Hello,
I know there is an approach for handling lists that allows for optimized traversal, but I can’t recall the specific method (somet...
New
Hello,
I’m trying to build a basic Phoenix web-app, and I’d like to use Tailwind.
However, when I launch mix phx.server, I get an error...
New
Hi everyone,
I am toying with the idea of building a “match maker” for giving personal help to people that wants to start coding.
I sta...
New
So my question is quite simple and i have found no conclusive answer on forum, google or AI.
Should we use :erlang.float for Integer to ...
New
I recently noticed that Elixir’s Logger defaults its primary log level to :debug when no :logger, :level application configuration is pre...
New
Other Trending Topics
Edit: 2026 May 15 - This post is archived.
Mob is alive!!
Main docs: mob v0.7.11 — Documentation
A bit of explanation for the slightly c...
New
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
I am happy to introduce the very α version of the new programming language compiled to BEAM.
Welcome Cure.
It has literally three kille...
New
Hobbes is a low-level distributed database for the Elixir programming language.
Hobbes provides a simple, safe, and scalable storage lay...
New
Hi everyone!
The first release candidate for the Expert language server project is now available!
We’ve published a press release detai...
New
A little off-topic, but I feel like people here have a good head on their shoulders.
I used to be quite good at making software. Was luc...
New
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
- #ai
- #ecto-query
- #elixirconf-us
- #blog-post
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #distillery
- #processes
- #elixirconf-eu
- #api
- #forms
- #metaprogramming
- #hex











Showing Posts 1 to 7- Show Best Posts
- Show All (oldest first)
- Show All (newest first)
dimitarvp
Does not seem to be possible, no.
al2o3cr
You can mix
defanddefpwith different arities:spammy
That is where I landed, that the default parameter has to be expressed differently.
Would it be more idiomatic to change the name of the private function?
LostKobrakai
I’d say yes. It’s just accidental that the private one happens to have a different arity, which allows for it being named the same.
rvirding
This is just because what defines a function is its module, name and arity. So
foo/1andfoo/2are 2 different functions that just happen to have the same name.spammy
I guess my more general question was “is it possible to affect implied functions created by default parameters”. An example that doesn’t work:
sodapopcan
I’ve always found it helpful to think of
\\as a simple convenience rather than “default arguments.” All it’s doing is turning this:into this:
The easiest and clearest way to get what you want it to just write it out manually as suggested.
So the short answer is no, but technically yes if you consider redefining
defand changing how\\works