Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 274211
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 12, 20262026-05-12T00:34:29+00:00 2026-05-12T00:34:29+00:00

I’ve got to the stage where I’ve written quite a bit of Erlang code

  • 0

I’ve got to the stage where I’ve written quite a bit of Erlang code now, and I can see some style (bad or good) creeping into the way I’ve been writing it. This particular idiom I’d like some opinion on – is it better (more readable/faster/whatever) to convert case style statements to function pattern matching?

E.g.

Compare (a contrived example)

case {Size > 100000, Type} of
    {true, ets } ->
         %% Do something to convert to dets
         something;
    {false, dets} ->
         %% do something to convert to ets
         somethingelse;
    _ ->
         ignoreit
end;

with

...
maybeChangeStorage(Size, Type)
...

maybeChangeStorage(Size, ets) when Size > 10000 ->
   something;
maybeChangeStorage(Size, dets) when Size < 10000 ->
   somethingelse;
maybeChangeStorage(_,_) ->
   ignoreit.

I prefer the latter in most cases but I’d be interested in other opinion.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-12T00:34:30+00:00Added an answer on May 12, 2026 at 12:34 am

    The second is the preferred way especially if you can keep the clauses to a single line:

    maybeCngStor(Sz, ets)  when Sz > 10000 -> something;
    maybeCngStor(Sz, dets) when Sz < 10000 -> somethingelse;
    maybeCngStor(_,_)                      -> ignoreit.
    

    Makes it very easy to read and reason about. Always choose the style that will be easiest to read in the future. Often you find a set of clauses where one is a 10 liner and the rest are one lines only – break out the long one to a function:

    maybeCngStor(Sz, ets)  when Sz > 10000 -> something;
    maybeCngStor(Sz, dets) when Sz < 10000 -> somethingelse();
    maybeCngStor(_,_)                      -> ignoreit.
    
    somethingelse() ->
       (...)
       Return.
    

    Little things like laying out the clauses to align them and using short variable names matter – but don’t fall into the trap of changing everything to P, Q, R.

    A good trick if you use records a lot is to match out the records to short variables:

    #record{foo = F, bar = B, baz = Bz} = Parameter
    

    This gives you short variable names that make sense when you parachute into the function from 10,000 feet looking for a bug next Christmas. F obviously is a Foo, etc, etc…

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have a jquery bug and I've been looking for hours now, I can't
I have just tried to save a simple *.rtf file with some websites and
link Im having trouble converting the html entites into html characters, (&# 8217;) i
For some reason, after submitting a string like this Jack’s Spindle from a text
I've got a string that has curly quotes in it. I'd like to replace
I have a string like this: La Torre Eiffel paragonata all&#8217;Everest What PHP function
this is what i have right now Drawing an RSS feed into the php,
I have this code to decode numeric html entities to the UTF8 equivalent character.
I'm parsing an RSS feed that has an &#8217; in it. SimpleXML turns this
I have this code: - (void)parser:(NSXMLParser *)parser foundCDATA:(NSData *)CDATABlock { NSString *someString = [[NSString

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.