erl_syntax_lib:annotate_bindings/1 and bounded variables in patterns

Previous Topic Next Topic
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

erl_syntax_lib:annotate_bindings/1 and bounded variables in patterns

Salvador Tamarit

we have been using erl_syntax_lib:annotate_bindings/1 for a transformation that needs to know the variables binding to proceed. One of the critical points is to know whether a variable in a pattern is bound or not. We have found an unexpected behaviour in the way the bindings are annotated. Let's see an example:

Suppose we have the following piece of code:

A = 3,
B = 2,
case ... of 
       {{D,D},{A,D},D} -> 

Calling to erl_syntax_lib:annotate_bindings/1 with the pattern of the clause as argument produce the following erl_syntax's AST (we show only a snippet of it):


We would expect that the second occurrence of variable D were considered as bound  since it has been bound in its first occurrence. Further occurrences of D in the pattern are also considered as unbound. This is something that is true when you consider the pattern as a whole, but not if you consider how it is supposed to be evaluated. We have been discussing about two alternatives for the evaluation of these patterns: In both the first thing is to substitute the variables in the environment before evaluating the pattern. Then, one option is that each time a variable is found it is bound and then compared to the current pattern environment, i.e. first D puts the value of D in the environment, then the second occurrence of D is assigned to whatever and then matched with the environment. The second approach is that once a variable is bound in the pattern, a substitution is applied to the the rest of the pattern, i.e. if {3, 3, 4, 5} is matched with {D, D, E, F}, after evaluating the first D the pattern becomes {3, 3, E, F}.  In any case, we wonder if independently of how the pattern is evaluated, maybe the binding annotated by erl_syntax_lib:annotate_bindings/1 would be more useful if they considered as bound  the second occurrence of D in the example above. In a similar way that when we have an expression (not pattern) tuple {X = 3,X}, where the second X is annotated as bound.

Thanks in advance.
Salvador Tamarit 

erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]