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
Hi all,
I’m working on a Phoenix project where I need to make external HTTP requests and I’m trying to choose between Req and HTTPoison....
New
I’m very new to Elixir, so sorry if this is a silly question:
I am wondering what happens to the mailbox of a process when the machine i...
New
How do I tell Hologram not to escape HTML when substituting into templates?
{Textile.render(@product.long_description)}
escapes the HTM...
New
Background
When trying to execute mix release on a Windows 11 machine for a Phoenix project I get the following error:
* assembling mark...
New
I’d like to create a file with 600 permissions (rw-------), but there’s a race condition if I create it and then change the permissions. ...
New
Is there a way to import record definitions in the iex shell for pretty printing (similar to the rr command in the erl shell)? This woul...
New
When I use Mix.install with a git dependency, using git@github.com:... how do I change the SSH identity used?
I’ve got two Github accoun...
New
Other Trending Topics
Hey everyone,
I’ve been working on something for the past while and finally published it, so I wanted to share.
It’s called Infusion. Y...
New
Hey there,
I haven’t seen a list of useful Elixir specific skills for the popular AI tools yet so I’m starting one here with my first.
...
New
Hi everyone :waving_hand:
I wanted to share something I’ve been building — NowBlind, a random chat app designed to help people discover ...
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
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 just needed to vent somewhere and LinkedIn is full of hope, or hype, I’m not sure which exactly)
AI dream has many faces, but general...
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
- #code-sync
- #discussion
- #podcasts
- #javascript
- #onsite
- #dialyzer
- #docker
- #authentication
- #ai
- #umbrella
- #elixirconf-us
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #blog-post
- #ecto-query
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #distillery
- #elixirconf-eu
- #processes
- #security
- #api
- #forms
- #performance










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: