Vertigo
Could anyone explain this function signature
Reading/practicing through “Functional Web Development with Elixir, OTP and Phoenix”, I came across the following module definition;
defmodule IslandsEngine.Rules do
alias __MODULE__
defstruct state: :initialized,
player1: :islands_not_set,
player2: :islands_not_set
def new(), do:
%Rules{}
def check(%Rules{state: :initialized} = rules, :add_player), do:
{:ok, %Rules{rules | state: :players_set}}
...
end
What is the reason for the first agument’s right hand side declaration (‘= rules’) is it simply a definition of the working variable within scope ?
def check(%Rules{state: :initialized} = rules, :add_player), do:
{:ok, %Rules{rules | state: :players_set}}
Running iex -S mix I see no practical difference passing in a different ‘variable’ name or direct struct, but perhaps I am missing something obvious;
Interactive Elixir (1.7.1) - press Ctrl+C to exit (type h() ENTER for help)
iex(1)> alias IslandsEngine.Rules
IslandsEngine.Rules
iex(2)> things = Rules.new()
%IslandsEngine.Rules{
player1: :islands_not_set,
player2: :islands_not_set,
state: :initialized
}
iex(3)> Rules.check(things, :add_player)
{:ok,
%IslandsEngine.Rules{
player1: :islands_not_set,
player2: :islands_not_set,
state: :players_set
}}
iex(4)> Rules.check(%IslandsEngine.Rules{state: :initialized}, :add_player)
{:ok,
%IslandsEngine.Rules{
player1: :islands_not_set,
player2: :islands_not_set,
state: :players_set
}}
Marked As Solved
peerreynders
What is the reason for the first agument’s right hand side declaration (’= rules’) ?
rules is the same as in:
def check(rules, :add_player), do:
the difference is that
def check(%Rules{state: :initialized} = rules, :add_player), do:
adds the constraint of a pattern match.
Also Liked
NobbZ
Anything that matches the pattern %Rules{state: :initialized} will be bound to rules in the function body.
Vertigo
Thanks for replying!
I reasoned that meanwhile…, two related questions;
- Is there strict order rules, e.g. can it also be rules = %Rules{…} instead ?
- Why doesn’t it complain about the other two keys that are defined within the module’s struct definition?
peerreynders
Pattern matches on maps aren’t exact. The map can contain information in addition to the data that is matched.
peerreynders
- Is there strict order rules, e.g. can it also be rules = %Rules{…} instead ?
IIRC that order will work as well.
Why doesn’t it complain about the other two keys that are defined within the module’s struct definition?
Complain about what? It’s a pattern - not a value. The pattern doesn’t care about the player1: and player2: keys and their values.
AlchemistCamp
Yep, both orders work. Great book you’re going through, BTW!







