beno
I will often find my self writing things similar to:
case some_value do
nil -> something()
"" -> something()
_ -> something_else()
end
So in other words I have multiple match clauses that resolve to the same outcome. I makes me want to write something like:
case some_value do
nil | "" -> something()
_ -> something_else()
end
Of course in this case you’d probably turn the clauses around, but that is usually not desirable or in sync with my thinking about the problem. I can think of other solutions as well, but what is the most Elixiry way of tackling this?
Trending in Questions
I’m aware of 2 such projects, are there others?
git: GitHub - team-alembic/realworld: A fullstack Phoenix LiveView application with back...
New
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
Hi everyone.
My team and I have been working on a fairly modest app based around video streaming and chat, but we’ve landed a customer t...
New
I really like the adapter patterns that ecto, nebulex, waffle, etc. use and would love find something similar for a key management servic...
New
Hello folks!
So at work, we are seeing some situations where we have to define some “fixed” strings that are used across the codebase in...
New
How Can I Optimise Compile Time Dependencies
I have been building an elixir application for about 2 years now. Many modules and files ha...
New
Other Trending Topics
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
Hey. Is there anyone here who creates agents in their apps? Not talking about using agents, but creating them. I’m finding it pretty diff...
New
I fully migrated to my own harness from Anthropic/Gemini and I think it’s time to share it. Welcome DSH, the DeepSeek Harness, fully writ...
New
Beam Bots (or just BB for short) is a framework for building fault-tolerant robotics applications in Elixir using familiar OTP patterns. ...
New
There has been a thread to discuss the Stack Overflow Developer Survey on this forum every year since 2018, so here’s yet another one for...
New
I love Elixir. It’s one of 2 programming languages I’ve ever fallen in love with.
But I don’t use it anymore.
Serverless was the promis...
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
- #ai
- #umbrella
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #ecto-query
- #blog-post
- #elixirconf-us
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #distillery
- #processes
- #elixirconf-eu
- #api
- #forms
- #security
- #metaprogramming











Showing Posts 1 to 6- Show Best Posts
- Show All (oldest first)
- Show All (newest first)
net
beno
Thank you very much. I will be using this from now on.
NobbZ
This only works kind of.
1 in [1.0]is true when I’m remembering correctly. Also sometimes you want to bind parts of the different matches. That won’t work with your guard as well. Last but not least guards can’t get compiled into a trie and therefore slow down the overall match.benwilson512
I think your overall point is good but this is in fact false, both in matches and in the general case:
NobbZ
Ok, then I mid remembered the semantics of
in. The issue of bindings still applies and the fact that guards do affect the performance as well. So 2 of 3 issues remaining.OvermindDL1
To be specific, the right argument of the
in/not inoperator must be statically known at compile-time when used in guard position, so you cannot do something like:This is because in guard position the
inoperator works differently than in non-guard position (I really dislike inconsistencies like this), specifically it gets expanded, so the above example when written like:Actually gets compiled to (you can check with a core erlang dump):
EDIT: It also works with ranges:
Gets turned into: