Re: bogus 'unsafe variable' warning with try-else

Pierre Fenoll <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.lang.erlang.bugs
Message-ID <CAMmfOZsTJr+uY0V7+2UAE-Lhy8ro_TJUfXaaMamtDurQFVQS6w@mail.gmail.com>
I guess the best option (and the one intended by OP) is to file:close/1 as
soon as possible.

Thus Anthony's proposition would be unsuitable (though valid) and OP would
need something like Kostis' case proposition.

I don't get why the scoping rules differ between try…after and case…of. I
don't think they should (but I am surely missing an edge case where the
difference makes sense).


Cheers,
-- 
Pierre Fenoll


On 20 November 2014 14:22, Kostis Sagonas <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 11/20/14 15:13, Anthony Ramine wrote:
>
>> try file:read(F, 1024 * 1024) of
>>      {ok,Bin} -> binary_to_term(Bin)
>> after
>>      file:close(F)
>> end
>>
>
>
> And the reason to _having_ to write this is?  (*)
>
> Cheers,
> Kostis
>
> (*) Less bugs are exposed in the compiler and less baby cats die in China
> if we all write like that, perhaps? :)
>
> Jokes aside, I also agree the above code is nicer, but that does not mean
> that the current warning is bogus and the analysis should be fixed.
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-bugs mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-bugs
>

_______________________________________________
erlang-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-bugs
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.