In my not so long professional experience with elixir, you don't write bare receive/after, usually it comes in some form of genserver callbacks. I agree that after clause not being pattern matching is confusing, but it's a fair trade-off to keep language at least visually consistent, and also not having to dealing with uneven do's and end's from your suggestion.
-------- Original Message -------- On 06/05/2024 23:49, Brandon Gillespie wrote: > I’ve had to re-read those docs several times, and I personally find > receive/after rather confusing. It feels like an anti-pattern to the other > idioms in elixir, because: > > - with other uses of `after` in elixir the code therein is literally run > AFTER the other stuff is done, and usually its ALWAYS run. But with receive, > the value after `after` is an integral definition for how the first block of > code/patterns is even handled. The 'after' block may or may not run, it's not > always run. And finally, you can only specify one function anyway, so why > treat it with that -> pointer operator at all? > - > > It feels like I should be able to set several timeouts, based on using the > `->` operator where even right above you can specify many. But no! Only a > single expression may be used... > > - The receive block above is a pattern matching series, but the block under > after is NOT, it’s more like cond where the value is evaluated. Seeing both > right next to each other is confusing: > ``` > millis = 1000 > recieve do > ^millis -> blah # to demonstrate the difference > after > millis -> blah > end > > ``` > > Now to counter some of the arguments I suspect will come up :D > > - “I think it reads fine” -> great, but not helpful. So you’ve already gotten > past the mental clunk it causes. I’m interested in finding rough edges to > make the whole language more approachable to a wider audience. > - “Its how it is in erlang” -> In my opinion “status quo” is never an > argument. Moving on :D > > I had several suggestions, which included adding the timeout value at the > top, or using a new `timeout` token instead of `after`, but in the end, I > think what is probably the best middle of the road is to allow another `do` > instead of the `->` > > ``` > receive do > pattern -> > pattern ->... > after 1000 do > moar code here > end > > ``` > > Just some observations/random suggestions. Take them for what you will. > > -Brandon > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "elixir-lang-core" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > [https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/c0677b53-2313-41a3-919b-a29ca273f649%40cold.org](https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/c0677b53-2313-41a3-919b-a29ca273f649%40cold.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elixir-lang-core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/cMX6RoPrs5X10i3M3EbQMQRQ9S95-25yf9tHVumXmvK9ZHqcLoW0-_tatH3MCHKEYAqC1gEiCxjhVAzCpTYcnHpCv9IbXup65xn0dEYZuZ0%3D%40pm.me.
