tommy
When to use closures
I have been playing with closures today to learn when to use them but each time I find myself thinking, what’s the advantage over a normal function.
For example split_sentence is a closure and returns a function which returns a value.
And split_sentence2 is not a closure and just returns the same value as split_sentence but without being wrapped in a function.
(They both take a string such as “one two three” and return a new string with spaces relapsed with "*, “|”, “#” or “,”. They don’t do complete checking for correctness of the given parameters as I’m only creating to learn closures.)
#closure example (if I understand closures correctly)
def split_sentence do
token_options = ["*", "|", "#", ","]
fn(str, token) ->
if is_bitstring(str || token) do
if Enum.member? token_options, token do
String.replace str, " ", token, global: true
else [:error, "#{token} is not a valid token. Valid tokens are #{token_options}"]
end
else [:error, "two strings expected"]
end
end
end
#not a closure
def split_sentence2(str, token) do
token_options = ["*", "|", "#", ","]
if is_bitstring(str || token) do
if Enum.member? token_options, token do
String.replace str, " ", token, global: true
else [:error, "#{token} is not a valid token. Valid tokens are #{token_options}"]
end
else [:error, "two strings expected"]
end
end
Why use one over the other? Maybe these aren’t good example? What is a good use-case for closures? I have google this question a lot and still can’t translate that into my own coding.
Marked As Solved
al2o3cr
Closures can be used for lots of things, but at heart they’re about separating “what should be computed” from “when it should be computed”.
A good example to look at is Map.get/3 versus Map.get_lazy/3:
Map.get(some_map, :some_key, ExpensiveModule.run())
# always executes ExpensiveModule.run, even when the value isn't used
Map.get_lazy(some_map, :some_key, fn -> ExpensiveModule.run() end)
# only executes ExpensiveModule.run if the value is needed
Here, wrapping ExpensiveModule.run() (the “what should be computed”) in a closure allows Enum.get_lazy to evaluate it on-demand (“when it should be computed”).
This operation is so common there’s a shorthand for it, the “capture operator” &. The second call above could instead be spelled Map.get_lazy(some_map, :some_key, &ExpensiveModule.run/0)
Closures see two kinds of variables: arguments and environment.
- arguments are supplied where the closure is used. A simple example:
Enum.map(some_list, fn arg -> IO.inspect(arg) end) - the closure’s environment is “closed” when the closure is created, and contains the local variables visible at that point in the code For instance,
def split_many(strings, sep) do
Enum.map(strings, fn s ->
String.split(s, sep)
end)
end
Here s is an argument to the closure, but sep is part of the environment.
The closure’s environment is part of the closure, so it doesn’t change even when the closure is passed around:
def splitter(sep) do
fn s ->
String.split(s, sep)
end
end
def split_many_with_splitter(strings, splitter) do
Enum.map(strings, splitter)
end
# called like
split_many_with_splitter(strings, splitter("\t"))
Here sep is part of the environment in the closure returned by splitter, still available despite the splitter function having returned.
The BEAM takes this one level farther: code can send a closure to a different PROCESS and it will work without issues:
origin_pid = self()
closure = fn other_pid ->
IO.inspect(origin_pid, label: "origin pid")
IO.inspect(other_pid, label: "other pid")
end
listener_pid = spawn(fn ->
receive do
a_closure ->
a_closure.(self())
end
end)
send(listener_pid, closure)
should print something like:
origin pid: #PID<0.106.0>
#Function<44.97283095/1 in :erl_eval.expr/5>
other pid: #PID<0.152.0>
(the exact position of the lines is variable, because concurrency)
Here closure is created in the initial process sent to the listener_pid process, but retains the value in origin_pid.
This is used in the standard library for things like Agent.get, where it’s used to avoid copying the entire Agent state back to the calling process - the idea is that the closure passed to Agent.get can access the agent’s state directly and return only what it’s interested in. For instance, you might use an Agent to maintain a large shared data structure in-memory and use Agent.get with a closure that extracts a small piece.
This also works over Distributed Erlang, for the ultimate “bring the computation TO the data” experience. ![]()
Edit: add some general Elixir notes
-
[:error, "two strings expected"]: the usual convention for this kind of value is a tuple ({:error, "two strings expected"}). The list form will work, but future readers may be confused -
if is_bitstring(str || token) do: this likely doesn’t do what you mean. It matches what we would say “ifstrortokenis a bitstring do this” but it means “ifstris a bitstring, orstrisnilandtokenis a bitstring”. Considerif is_bitstring(str) and is_bitstring(token) door see below for another option -
consider doing type-checking with pattern-matching to keep the main code path clear:
def split_sentence(str, token) when is_bitstring(str) and is_bitstring(token) do
...
end
def split_sentence(_, _), do: {:error, "two strings expected"}
Also Liked
dorgan
In languages like Elixir, functions are first class(function expressions or lambda expression): you can bind them to variables and pass them around.
When a function has variables in it’s body that are not present in the function arguments(they have “free” variables, so it’s an open expression), they are defined by the values in it’s surrounding context(like the “parent” scope), so that every variable gets bound to a value and the expression get’s closed and a computer can evaluate it. That context is called the closure of the function expression, because it closes an open expression.
Though many people call closures to the function expressions because in their implementation often times both the context and the function definition get wrapped in a single struct Closure and just get used to that. So in practical terms you can call the function a closure and that’s alright, but conceptually the closure is the context.
Would you say a closure is like an object (as in OO languages) with one method that get’s passed into other objects to have it functionality used when needed?
Conceptually a closure is not an object, it’s just a function value. In an object oriented language like C# you may see something like this:
using System.Linq;
int[] arr = { 1, 2, 3 };
int[] doubledArr = arr.Select(el => el * 2).toArray();
Where el => el * 2 is the closure. It’s not a method of any object. It’s kind of like a “literal function”.
tommy
This is amazing thank you. I’m going to look at this in the morning when my brain isn’t so fried, so I can reply properly.
Popular in Questions
Other popular topics
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
- #javascript
- #code-sync
- #podcasts
- #onsite
- #dialyzer
- #docker
- #authentication
- #umbrella
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #ecto-query
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #blog-post
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #ai
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #elixirconf-us
- #distillery
- #processes
- #forms
- #api
- #metaprogramming
- #security
- #performance








