Tigers, and lions, and bears, oh my!

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
dmitriid wrote in en_dmitriid
As I promised here are my thoughts:

1. First of all, pattern matching lets you describe what yo eed with little or no effort. For example, consider these rules:

{field, Func}
{field, {'=', field2}}

Frankly, I have a very vague idea how these could be matched using ifs only. I guess you would create a Rule class and inherit a slew of classes from it. Something like RuleField, RuleFunc, RuleOperator and so on. If you use pattern matching, however, the rules are easily parsed::

validate_rule({FieldName}) ->

%%{field, Func}
validate_rule({FieldName, Func}) when is_function(Func) ->

%%{field, {'=', field2}}
validate_rule({FieldName, {Operator, FieldName2}}) ->

Such ease, however, may bring (and it does bring me) to my second thought:

2. WTF-ish code. The thought that you can easily slice through complex constructs makes you write before you think.

In my case I knew what I wanted to pass to the function, but I had no idea what I expected the function to return. Ok, I've parsed the rules, what now?

As a result, the first version of the function would return a deeply nested list of lists that looked something like this:

[[Field, [Error1, Error2]], [Field2, [Error3, Error4]]]

It took me two additional refactorings to make it return a properproplist.

This same "wow, look at how I handle things!" approach resulted in an ugly preprocessing of results before I return these to the user:

    fun(Elem) -> 
            Elem of {} -> false; 
            {_, []} -> false;
            _ -> true 
    lists:flatten(validate1(A, ValidationRules, [])))

Yup. Get rid of those unwanted elements before the user sees them. Are you scared? I am. I m saddened as well :(

Here's where my train of thoughts stops...


Log in