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 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
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
Documentation
While reading the Scoped Routes section, I noticed that the documentation currently refers to a problem without explainin...
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
I’m new to elixir and just tried to install the elixirLS extension for VScode(ium) and it is throwing some errors that I would like help ...
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
- #ecto-query
- #ai
- #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 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: