I always load a namespace not-really-constants. It contains, among other definitions:
(def foo 0.05)
Another namespace contains
(ns other-ns
(require [not-really-constants :as cn]))
(defn bar [x] (* x cn/foo))
However, sometimes I want foo to have a different value. So I load a namespace containing
(in-ns 'not-really-constants)
(def foo 0.025)
And then I call other-ns/bar in the place where it would normally be called. bar then uses the new value of foo, 0.025, rather than the original 0.05.
I'm not sure whether to be suprised about this behavior. I think of redefining using def as a handy convenience in the repl, but as something that's one is not supposed to do in normal code. However, I'm not sure why. Redefining foo in this way seems to work without trouble running everything from the commandline using lein run, loading files via require.
So, my question is: What are the dangers or other drawbacks of this practice--i.e. of redefining a variable using def?
(BTW I don't add ^:dynamic to the definition of foo because I don't need thread-local bindings; the new value of foo should be used everywhere. If I add ^:const to the definition of foo, bar uses the original 0.05 value despite the fact that I redefined foo, as bar should in that case.)
Redefining a var is not thread safe and should not be done in production environments. There is a good response available to a similar question that goes into more depth on the underlying reasons.
The main drawback to redefining vars in Clojure has less to do with thread safety, and more to do with the inherent dangers of mutable state. Idiomatic Clojure strives to be purely functional and free of side-effects. This makes it much easier to reason about the logic of your program - given the same inputs, a function will always produce the same output.
When you redefine a var, you're basically treating it as a mutable global variable. The behavior of code that uses that variable now depends not only on its inputs, but the order in which it is executed relative to other code that might have altered that variable. This extra dimension of time makes it much harder to reason about your program.
I'd treat redefining a var as a code smell: it might be OK in this particular situation, but should be an indication that you should re-evaluate your approach and see if there's a better way.
Related
How does single assignment in Erlang lead to more readable code (referential transparency)?
Coding is easy, debugging is hard. Code to make debugging trivial. -- Barry Rountree
With a single assignment, you can be sure that variable has one value in the whole function body. It makes debugging much easier. You can put debugging and logging whenever you want. You can easily spot the place where it gains its value and so on. Isn't it obvious?
On of the goals of functional programs is to avoid side effects. In short this is a property of the code that it behaves exactly the same every time it's executed. That's why shared state is being avoided and why developers often frown upon the process dictionary in Erlang. A pure functional language wouldn't have any side effects. Various functional languages try to formalize code that produces side effects, like for example Haskell.
Obviously, if the value assigned to a variable can be changed, then the same function executed twice would produce different result depending on the value contained in the variable. In OOP output from a function executed on an object produces a result that depends on the state contained in that object. So you can't understand the code properly without knowing the state contained in the object as well.
With single assignment the output doesn't depend on the state but only on the arguments passed to the function. This is especially useful when something crashed and you have a stack trace or you log a debug output from a function. You can read the code and assign values to each variable knowing that nothing would have altered those values if the same code was to be executed again.
What is the rationale behind allowing rebinding of variables in Elixir, when Erlang doesn't allow that?
Most functional languages don't allow rebinding of variables in the same scope. So Elixir allowing this does definitely give it an non-functional, imperative feel. Erlang's problem is rather lack of scope, or to be more precise that there is only one scope in a whole function clause. We did have serious discussions whether to introduce scope but in the end we decided against it as it was backwards incompatible with the existing system. And developers hate backwards inconsistent changes.
The Erlang way has one serious benefit: when you get it wrong you generally get an error so you can SEE the mistake. This compared just getting strange behaviour when a variable doesn't have the value you expect it to have which is MUCH harder to detect and correct.
Personally I think that the problem of new variable names, for example using the number scheme, is greatly overblown. Compared to the time it takes me to work out WHAT I am going to do changing variable names is trivial. And after a while you just see it without reflecting about it. Honestly.
EDIT:
Also when chaining data through a sequence of functions the actual meaning of the data changes so reusing the same variable name can be very misleading. It can end up just meaning a generic "data I am passing from one function to another".
Here's the rationale straight from the horse's mouth:
http://blog.plataformatec.com.br/2016/01/comparing-elixir-and-erlang-variables/
Because it's simpler.
Take a look at this question posted to the Erlang mailing list in 2009. Specifically this part:
I like pattern matching in the majority of cases, but I find I write
enough code where I need to incrementally update a data structure, and
maintaining that code is a pain when I have code like:
X = foo(),
X1 = bar(X),
X2 = xyzzy(X1),
blah(X2).
and later want to change it to:
X = foo(),
X1 = whee(X),
X2 = bar(X1),
X3 = xyzzy(X2),
blah(X3).
Editor's note--this is the reply to that question.
This goes through IRC a lot. This is a result of poor variable naming
practice, and there is no need to introduce rebinding to "fix" it;
just stop using single letters and counters as variable names.
If for example that was written
FooStateX = foo(),
PostBarX = bar(FooStateX),
OnceXyzziedX = xyzzy(PostBarX),
blah(OnceXyzziedX).
The code demonstrated there isn't all that uncommon in Erlang (note the remark "this goes through IRC a lot"). Elixir's ability to simply rebind names saves us from having to generate new dummy names for things all the time. That's all. It's wise to bear in mind that the original creators of Erlang weren't trying to build a functional language. They were simply pragmatic developers who had a problem to solve. Elixir's approach is simple pragmatism.
Have a pretty simple function for taking the name of a month, "Jan", "Feb", etc. and converting to the number of the month:
function month_num(month_str)
character*(*) :: month_str
character*3 :: month_names(12)
integer :: ipos(1),location(12)
data month_names/'Jan','Feb','Mar','Apr','May','Jun','Jul','Aug', &
'Sep','Oct','Nov','Dec'/
where (month_names==month_str) location=1
ipos = maxloc(location)
month_num = ipos(1)
end function
And OK, yes, I know it's dangerous to not define "location" before using it.
Problem: During execution of the function, if input is OK, some value of "location" will be set to 1. And, to my surprise, when the function is called again, that value will still be equal to 1. And this, of course, really messes things up. So I figured I would fix it with a new line
data location/12*0/
And I got the same problem.
Finally, I put in
location = 0
just before the "where" statement, and that fixed everything.
So, I thought FORTRAN subprograms would not save data unless the variables were declared with the "SAVE" attribute. Also, with many compilers, you can invoke some sort of "static" option that will keep everything saved. I did neither of these here, but the "location" array was saved just the same. Can someone enlighten me on the rules of when FORTRAN saves data and when not? Thanks.
The value of a variable local to a procedure is preserved across (ie it is SAVEd) in one of two ways:
The programmer specifies the SAVE attribute when declaring the variable, for example:
REAL, SAVE :: var1
The programmer initialises the variable upon declaration, for example
REAL :: var1 = 3.1415
This second, implicit, behaviour is one features of Fortran which seem designed to catch out the programmer, and not just beginners. Note that the value the variable has upon re-invocation is not, in the 2nd example 3.1415, but whatever value it had when the last invocation exited.
It is common for compilers to behave as if a variable is SAVEd when the programmer has not exercised either of these options, perhaps the memory locations used by one invocation of a procedure are not overwritten before the next invocation. But this behaviour is not to be relied on.
The situation is slightly different for variables declared in modules. Again any variable with the SAVE attribute is saved but any other variable only retains its value while the module is use-associated with a program unit which has started executing but not finished. Again some compilers, and some executions of some programs, may behave as if the value of a module variable is preserved despite the module going out of scope but this is non-standard behaviour and not to be relied on.
This behaviour is scheduled to change in Fortran 2008 when variables defined in modules will acquire the SAVE attribute implicitly.
Personally I like to explicitly SAVE variables even when I am sure that they would get the attribute implicitly, it makes the code just a bit easier to understand next time round.
I'm learning Elixir and wonder why it has two types of function definitions:
functions defined in a module with def, called using myfunction(param1, param2)
anonymous functions defined with fn, called using myfn.(param1, param2)
Only the second kind of function seems to be a first-class object and can be passed as a parameter to other functions. A function defined in a module needs to be wrapped in a fn. There's some syntactic sugar which looks like otherfunction(&myfunction(&1, &2)) in order to make that easy, but why is it necessary in the first place? Why can't we just do otherfunction(myfunction))? Is it only to allow calling module functions without parenthesis like in Ruby? It seems to have inherited this characteristic from Erlang which also has module functions and funs, so does it actually comes from how the Erlang VM works internally?
It there any benefit having two types of functions and converting from one type to another in order to pass them to other functions? Is there a benefit having two different notations to call functions?
Just to clarify the naming, they are both functions. One is a named function and the other is an anonymous one. But you are right, they work somewhat differently and I am going to illustrate why they work like that.
Let's start with the second, fn. fn is a closure, similar to a lambda in Ruby. We can create it as follows:
x = 1
fun = fn y -> x + y end
fun.(2) #=> 3
A function can have multiple clauses too:
x = 1
fun = fn
y when y < 0 -> x - y
y -> x + y
end
fun.(2) #=> 3
fun.(-2) #=> 3
Now, let's try something different. Let's try to define different clauses expecting a different number of arguments:
fn
x, y -> x + y
x -> x
end
** (SyntaxError) cannot mix clauses with different arities in function definition
Oh no! We get an error! We cannot mix clauses that expect a different number of arguments. A function always has a fixed arity.
Now, let's talk about the named functions:
def hello(x, y) do
x + y
end
As expected, they have a name and they can also receive some arguments. However, they are not closures:
x = 1
def hello(y) do
x + y
end
This code will fail to compile because every time you see a def, you get an empty variable scope. That is an important difference between them. I particularly like the fact that each named function starts with a clean slate and you don't get the variables of different scopes all mixed up together. You have a clear boundary.
We could retrieve the named hello function above as an anonymous function. You mentioned it yourself:
other_function(&hello(&1))
And then you asked, why I cannot simply pass it as hello as in other languages? That's because functions in Elixir are identified by name and arity. So a function that expects two arguments is a different function than one that expects three, even if they had the same name. So if we simply passed hello, we would have no idea which hello you actually meant. The one with two, three or four arguments? This is exactly the same reason why we can't create an anonymous function with clauses with different arities.
Since Elixir v0.10.1, we have a syntax to capture named functions:
&hello/1
That will capture the local named function hello with arity 1. Throughout the language and its documentation, it is very common to identify functions in this hello/1 syntax.
This is also why Elixir uses a dot for calling anonymous functions. Since you can't simply pass hello around as a function, instead you need to explicitly capture it, there is a natural distinction between named and anonymous functions and a distinct syntax for calling each makes everything a bit more explicit (Lispers would be familiar with this due to the Lisp 1 vs. Lisp 2 discussion).
Overall, those are the reasons why we have two functions and why they behave differently.
I don't know how useful this will be to anyone else, but the way I finally wrapped my head around the concept was to realize that elixir functions aren't Functions.
Everything in elixir is an expression. So
MyModule.my_function(foo)
is not a function but the expression returned by executing the code in my_function. There is actually only one way to get a "Function" that you can pass around as an argument and that is to use the anonymous function notation.
It is tempting to refer to the fn or & notation as a function pointer, but it is actually much more. It's a closure of the surrounding environment.
If you ask yourself:
Do I need an execution environment or a data value in this spot?
And if you need execution use fn, then most of the difficulties become much
clearer.
I may be wrong since nobody mentioned it, but I was also under the impression that the reason for this is also the ruby heritage of being able to call functions without brackets.
Arity is obviously involved but lets put it aside for a while and use functions without arguments. In a language like javascript where brackets are mandatory, it is easy to make the difference between passing a function as an argument and calling the function. You call it only when you use the brackets.
my_function // argument
(function() {}) // argument
my_function() // function is called
(function() {})() // function is called
As you can see, naming it or not does not make a big difference. But elixir and ruby allow you to call functions without the brackets. This is a design choice which I personally like but it has this side effect you cannot use just the name without the brackets because it could mean you want to call the function. This is what the & is for. If you leave arity appart for a second, prepending your function name with & means that you explicitly want to use this function as an argument, not what this function returns.
Now the anonymous function is bit different in that it is mainly used as an argument. Again this is a design choice but the rational behind it is that it is mainly used by iterators kind of functions which take functions as arguments. So obviously you don't need to use & because they are already considered arguments by default. It is their purpose.
Now the last problem is that sometimes you have to call them in your code, because they are not always used with an iterator kind of function, or you might be coding an iterator yourself. For the little story, since ruby is object oriented, the main way to do it was to use the call method on the object. That way, you could keep the non-mandatory brackets behaviour consistent.
my_lambda.call
my_lambda.call()
my_lambda_with_arguments.call :h2g2, 42
my_lambda_with_arguments.call(:h2g2, 42)
Now somebody came up with a shortcut which basically looks like a method with no name.
my_lambda.()
my_lambda_with_arguments.(:h2g2, 42)
Again, this is a design choice. Now elixir is not object oriented and therefore call not use the first form for sure. I can't speak for José but it looks like the second form was used in elixir because it still looks like a function call with an extra character. It's close enough to a function call.
I did not think about all the pros and cons, but it looks like in both languages you could get away with just the brackets as long as you make brackets mandatory for anonymous functions. It seems like it is:
Mandatory brackets VS Slightly different notation
In both cases you make an exception because you make both behave differently. Since there is a difference, you might as well make it obvious and go for the different notation. The mandatory brackets would look natural in most cases but very confusing when things don't go as planned.
Here you go. Now this might not be the best explanation in the world because I simplified most of the details. Also most of it are design choices and I tried to give a reason for them without judging them. I love elixir, I love ruby, I like the function calls without brackets, but like you, I find the consequences quite misguiding once in a while.
And in elixir, it is just this extra dot, whereas in ruby you have blocks on top of this. Blocks are amazing and I am surprised how much you can do with just blocks, but they only work when you need just one anonymous function which is the last argument. Then since you should be able to deal with other scenarios, here comes the whole method/lambda/proc/block confusion.
Anyway... this is out of scope.
I've never understood why explanations of this are so complicated.
It's really just an exceptionally small distinction combined with the realities of Ruby-style "function execution without parens".
Compare:
def fun1(x, y) do
x + y
end
To:
fun2 = fn
x, y -> x + y
end
While both of these are just identifiers...
fun1 is an identifier that describes a named function defined with def.
fun2 is an identifier that describes a variable (that happens to contain a reference to function).
Consider what that means when you see fun1 or fun2 in some other expression? When evaluating that expression, do you call the referenced function or do you just reference a value out of memory?
There's no good way to know at compile time. Ruby has the luxury of introspecting the variable namespace to find out if a variable binding has shadowed a function at some point in time. Elixir, being compiled, can't really do this. That's what the dot-notation does, it tells Elixir that it should contain a function reference and that it should be called.
And this is really hard. Imagine that there wasn't a dot notation. Consider this code:
val = 5
if :rand.uniform < 0.5 do
val = fn -> 5 end
end
IO.puts val # Does this work?
IO.puts val.() # Or maybe this?
Given the above code, I think it's pretty clear why you have to give Elixir the hint. Imagine if every variable de-reference had to check for a function? Alternatively, imagine what heroics would be necessary to always infer that variable dereference was using a function?
There's an excellent blog post about this behavior: link
Two types of functions
If a module contains this:
fac(0) when N > 0 -> 1;
fac(N) -> N* fac(N-1).
You can’t just cut and paste this into the shell and get the same
result.
It’s because there is a bug in Erlang. Modules in Erlang are sequences
of FORMS. The Erlang shell evaluates a sequence of
EXPRESSIONS. In Erlang FORMS are not EXPRESSIONS.
double(X) -> 2*X. in an Erlang module is a FORM
Double = fun(X) -> 2*X end. in the shell is an EXPRESSION
The two are not the same. This bit of silliness has been Erlang
forever but we didn’t notice it and we learned to live with it.
Dot in calling fn
iex> f = fn(x) -> 2 * x end
#Function<erl_eval.6.17052888>
iex> f.(10)
20
In school I learned to call functions by writing f(10) not f.(10) -
this is “really” a function with a name like Shell.f(10) (it’s a
function defined in the shell) The shell part is implicit so it should
just be called f(10).
If you leave it like this expect to spend the next twenty years of
your life explaining why.
Elixir has optional braces for functions, including functions with 0 arity. Let's see an example of why it makes a separate calling syntax important:
defmodule Insanity do
def dive(), do: fn() -> 1 end
end
Insanity.dive
# #Function<0.16121902/0 in Insanity.dive/0>
Insanity.dive()
# #Function<0.16121902/0 in Insanity.dive/0>
Insanity.dive.()
# 1
Insanity.dive().()
# 1
Without making a difference between 2 types of functions, we can't say what Insanity.dive means: getting a function itself, calling it, or also calling the resulting anonymous function.
fn -> syntax is for using anonymous functions. Doing var.() is just telling elixir that I want you to take that var with a func in it and run it instead of referring to the var as something just holding that function.
Elixir has a this common pattern where instead of having logic inside of a function to see how something should execute, we pattern match different functions based on what kind of input we have. I assume this is why we refer to things by arity in the function_name/1 sense.
It's kind of weird to get used to doing shorthand function definitions (func(&1), etc), but handy when you're trying to pipe or keep your code concise.
In elixir we use def for simply define a function like we do in other languages.
fn creates an anonymous function refer to this for more clarification
Only the second kind of function seems to be a first-class object and can be passed as a parameter to other functions. A function defined in a module needs to be wrapped in a fn. There's some syntactic sugar which looks like otherfunction(myfunction(&1, &2)) in order to make that easy, but why is it necessary in the first place? Why can't we just do otherfunction(myfunction))?
You can do otherfunction(&myfunction/2)
Since elixir can execute functions without the brackets (like myfunction), using otherfunction(myfunction)) it will try to execute myfunction/0.
So, you need to use the capture operator and specify the function, including arity, since you can have different functions with the same name. Thus, &myfunction/2.
Seems like it's inconsistent in the lists module. For example, split has the number as the first argument and the list as the second, but sublists has the list as the first argument and the len as the second argument.
OK, a little history as I remember it and some principles behind my style.
As Christian has said the libraries evolved and tended to get the argument order and feel from the impulses we were getting just then. So for example the reason why element/setelement have the argument order they do is because it matches the arg/3 predicate in Prolog; logical then but not now. Often we would have the thing being worked on first, but unfortunately not always. This is often a good choice as it allows "optional" arguments to be conveniently added to the end; for example string:substr/2/3. Functions with the thing as the last argument were often influenced by functional languages with currying, for example Haskell, where it is very easy to use currying and partial evaluation to build specific functions which can then be applied to the thing. This is very noticeable in the higher order functions in lists.
The only influence we didn't have was from the OO world. :-)
Usually we at least managed to be consistent within a module, but not always. See lists again. We did try to have some consistency, so the argument order in the higher order functions in dict/sets match those of the corresponding functions in lists.
The problem was also aggravated by the fact that we, especially me, had a rather cavalier attitude to libraries. I just did not see them as a selling point for the language, so I wasn't that worried about it. "If you want a library which does something then you just write it" was my motto. This meant that my libraries were structured, just not always with the same structure. :-) That was how many of the initial libraries came about.
This, of course, creates unnecessary confusion and breaks the law of least astonishment, but we have not been able to do anything about it. Any suggestions of revising the modules have always been met with a resounding "no".
My own personal style is a usually structured, though I don't know if it conforms to any written guidelines or standards.
I generally have the thing or things I am working on as the first arguments, or at least very close to the beginning; the order depends on what feels best. If there is a global state which is chained through the whole module, which there usually is, it is placed as the last argument and given a very descriptive name like St0, St1, ... (I belong to the church of short variable names). Arguments which are chained through functions (both input and output) I try to keep the same argument order as return order. This makes it much easier to see the structure of the code. Apart from that I try to group together arguments which belong together. Also, where possible, I try to preserve the same argument order throughout a whole module.
None of this is very revolutionary, but I find if you keep a consistent style then it is one less thing to worry about and it makes your code feel better and generally be more readable. Also I will actually rewrite code if the argument order feels wrong.
A small example which may help:
fubar({f,A0,B0}, Arg2, Ch0, Arg4, St0) ->
{A1,Ch1,St1} = foo(A0, Arg2, Ch0, St0),
{B1,Ch2,St2} = bar(B0, Arg4, Ch1, St1),
Res = baz(A1, B1),
{Res,Ch2,St2}.
Here Ch is a local chained through variable while St is a more global state. Check out the code on github for LFE, especially the compiler, if you want a longer example.
This became much longer than it should have been, sorry.
P.S. I used the word thing instead of object to avoid confusion about what I was talking.
No, there is no consistently-used idiom in the sense that you mean.
However, there are some useful relevant hints that apply especially when you're going to be making deeply recursive calls. For instance, keeping whichever arguments will remain unchanged during tail calls in the same order/position in the argument list allows the virtual machine to make some very nice optimizations.